St. Louis Rams Playing to the Right? (Updated)

You’ve probably all heard the latest Rams news.  From the LA Times on 10/6/09:

It appears conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh wants to be an NFL team owner.

In a statement released today, Limbaugh said he’s partnering with St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts in a bid to buy the St. Louis Rams. Limbaugh didn’t go into details, but said he and Checketts “have made a bid to buy the Rams and are continuing the process.”

Such a move would most certainly keep the Rams in St. Louis, good news to many.

Would the controversial Limbaugh make fans question their loyalty to the team?  Would the conservative radio host ask for taxpayer help to build a new stadium when the Rams have an out on their current lease at the Edward Jones Dome?    Or would he argue for a free market solution – he and the other owners building their own facility? Would they be happy keeping the team in a politically blue city?

Los Angeles is still without a team, and a loophole in the Rams’ lease allows them to move as early as 2014 if the Edward Jones Dome is not deemed among the top quarter of all NFL stadiums. Though just 14 years old, the dome is fast becoming one of the league’s older venues, and getting it into the top quarter seems unlikely. (Source: AP)

The poll this week, in the right sidebar, asks for your reaction to the possibility of Limbaugh as a Rams owner. Read the answers carefully before answering:

• I don’t like Limbaugh but I would continue supporting the Rams.
• I don’t like Limbaugh, used to support the Rams, but will stop if he becomes an owner.
• I don’t like Limbaugh and this would make it easier to stay away from the Rams.
• I don’t care who owns the team as long as it remains in St. Louis.
• I don’t have an opinion on Limbaugh buying the Rams.
• I like Limbaugh but not the Rams/football.
• I like Limbaugh so I might start supporting the Rams.
• I like Limbaugh and the Rams, great match.

I tried to cover all the options with the answers listed above.

The comments to the LA Times story covered all views from left to right:

– Steve Patterson

Where Is Your Third Place?

There is one thing cities provide in much greater abundance than suburbs: the essential “third places” in our lives that provide respite and relaxation for us outside our homes or workplaces.

Third places are defined as one of three places that meet fundamental human needs: home, a first place; work, a second place; and a third place, where we go to find community, relaxation, and simply “be” when we aren’t at home or working.

For all the people who work from home offices, the line between the first and second places, home and work space, may have blurred, but it makes the third place even more important. We all need a common place to hang out, see friends, find conversation, or simply watch the world go by. We seek a place that is separate from our homes or workplaces and all their attendant comforts and irritations.

Third places are very individual. In a family of four, there could be four different third places: church, coffeehouse, club or park. They are where you go to get away from your immediate responsibilities and expectations. You don’t have to do housework or laundry; you don’t have to finish that project or spar with your partner. You are (temporarily) free to indulge your own thoughts, talk or not talk, do or not do anything.

In the city of St. Louis there are many good third-places: local coffeehouses like The Hartford, Shaw Coffee or even the London Tea Room. There are neighborhood bars and cafes where they get to know you and you can stay as long as you like. There are libraries, drop-in centers and parks. There are churches and clubs, both social and athletic. There are museums and entertainment districts like The Loop on Delmar or Washington Avenue downtown. And there are intentional places like Left Bank Books with book groups, author readings and community events. These third places are close at hand, across the street or down the block, most of them within walking distance.

The suburbs of St. Louis are trickier, especially in second-ring suburbs. Newer, more affluent suburbs like Chesterfield and Wildwood have been built with more modern sensibilities about community gathering spots and the intentional communities created by mixed-use construction. You may be more likely to hang out at commercially sponsored third places like Starbucks or the mall, but they exist and are well used.

The second-ring suburbs are in a tougher spot. They belong to an earlier time, before we realized how much we would miss the communal third places that are so abundant in the city. Like the outer-ring suburbs, they may have some commercially-sponsored places like Starbucks, McDonalds or Dennys, but there may be only one or two in a municipality and they are rarely within walking distance. There is a real dearth of small, local businesses like independent coffeehouses, casual cafes or bookstores. Which pretty much leaves the bar, gym or possibly church and almost all of them require driving in your car.

There is a misplaced attempt to fulfill this need for third places in the construction of suburban great rooms, finished basements and fully-equipped media rooms, but all of these fall short. A third place requires distance from home and family. It also requires diversity and randomness in the people you might observe or start a conversation with.
When I lived in Seattle, I could easily walk a few blocks to any of six coffeehouses, each with its own ambience and crowd of regulars. There were bookstores with cafes where you could hang out from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. When I lived in the South Grand area, I had my choice of places to hang out.

In Maryland Heights, I’m stumped. I occasionally get in the car and drive to Starbucks at Westport or I go farther afield to Creve Couer or Chesterfield. More and more, I drive farther to Main Street in St. Charles or into the city to find a third place, but none of them are my third place.

City planners take note: vibrant cities or suburbs don’t exist without a multitude of viable third places. And if you want to attract the young, the creative, the socially engaged, that advice is doubly important.

What I’d like to know, especially if you’re a suburbanite, is where is your third place? Where do you regularly go to hang out, read a book, see friends, or just escape home and work responsibilities? What makes a place your third space? I look forward to what you have to say.

-Deborah Moulton

A Tale of Two Existences

Between recent comments here on the blog and the URBANEXUS gathering downtown recently, it has been striking how vehemently people feel about the urban vs. suburban existence. The vitriol is mostly one-sided, the urbanists against the suburbanites. To most suburbanites, there is little passion for that fight because the city is basically irrelevant to them. Suburbanites tend to fall into three main groups: they have lived in the city at one point and subsequently chosen a suburban path; they enjoy visiting city amenities but don’t want to live there; or it never appealed to them. So what lies behind this divide?

If urbanists disdain the suburbs and speak arrogantly toward those who live there, where is the fuel? I would suggest it is, at heart, anger. The suburbs represent everything they hate: sameness, conformity, uniformity, and detachment or entrenchment from the world at large. But aren’t these all illusions? Aren’t they just as conformist to an urban identity and shared disdain for the suburbs? Aren’t both cities and suburbs created landscapes representative of their times? Aren’t as many people isolated and detached from the world in their urban condos and apartments as the folks who inhabit split-levels, ranch houses and huge suburban great rooms? Is one really better than another? Or are they neither better or worse, just different?

I am the most unlikely defender of the suburbs. I have hated them most of my adult life. I grew up in a small town, 100 miles from any large city, and I didn’t really experience city life until after college when I started my career in Peoria, then Chicago. I lived on the Chicago’s north side, in Lincoln Park before it became ultra chic. Then I moved to Seattle in the Queen Anne neighborhood. I spent my vacations in cities visiting friends in New York, LA, San Francisco and Boston. Nothing else appealed to me and I was horrified by friends and relatives as they abandoned the cities for the suburbs. Not me, not ever, I said.

So here I am, in Maryland Heights, and (gasp) I enjoy it. It’s a second-ring suburb so it’s grown-up, it’s mature, it has huge trees and sidewalks. Its houses were built in the peak era of the rise of middle class. Large enough to be comfortable, but small enough to be considered now as modest in comparison to much larger, new suburban homes and mega mansions. The lawns aren’t huge, the neighborhood is extremely walkable for exercise and recreation, and the energy footprint is modest like the houses.

I have a garden and enjoy yard work after years of container gardening on porches and balconies. I have a giant sweet-gum tree in my front yard and love raking leaves. I know my neighbors. My sister and her family live less than a mile away. My mother lives with me. It is easy to get around and run errands, pick up library books, and every night, for the first time in my life, I park my car in an enclosed garage. I no longer have to get up early to scrape the ice from my windows, shovel myself out of street parking, or get soaked in the pouring rain before I’ve ever left home.

Located smack in the middle of I-270, I-70 and Page Avenue, I can get to the airport in under 15 minutes (important when I commuted weekly to Seattle for my job) and there’s almost no place in the metropolitan area that I can’t get to in about 20 minutes or less. I have fresh, locally grown food available at Thies Farm and the many charms of Creve Coeur Park are less than a mile from my house.

My city is small enough that I can easily attend meetings and interact with city government. I know the people who run my city and I can work both with them and in opposition to them to build a better city with a sustainable future. I have easily met others and formed a residents’ group that will continue to educate and inform the political process.

Maryland Heights is also auto-centric, lacks a town center and informal gathering places, and, like every other place on earth, is sometimes boring. So I think it comes down to this: time of life and love. Our decisions about where to live are not abstract concepts. They are practical and they come with a constellation of considerations, many beyond our control, and many of them related to love.

We fall in love with someone who already owns a house in the suburbs or we move to have a vastly shorter commute to our suburban employer. We move to the suburbs of St. Louis because our toddler will soon be in school and we believe in the value of public-school education, but not in the St. Louis city schools. Our parents grow old and need help and comfort in their old age. They move in with us, into a single-story ranch house with an attached garage, and easy access to medical facilities and grocery stores. We can simply be ready for a change of pace: ready to garden in our own yard, to participate in civic activities, and take care of our extended families while we still have them.

Time is precious. I wouldn’t trade my 25 years as a fervent urbanist for anything. It was the absolute right thing for me. I have come to love my life in the suburbs in service to those I hold most dear. There will be other chapters in my life and I will, doubtless, live other places, including the heart of a great city.

I wish I had been more thoughtful, and less shrill, about my choices when I was younger. I wish I could have been more confident in my own choices without thinking everyone had to feel the same way. I wish I had known more about the value of family ties and the difference between sacrifice and a loving sacrifice. I wish I had been kinder to my friends who married and left for the suburbs.

One of the great gifts of age is a truer appreciation of diversity and how we all make choices for love. My neighborhood is as integrated as my neighborhood in the city, maybe more so, because of all the nationalities that live near me. But it isn’t race that makes us diverse, it’s all the stories of how they came to be here, the choices they made for love, and why this is only one chapter of a long and varied life.

-Deborah Moulton

Pro Sports Teams in St. Louis

St. Louis has a long history with professional sports teams, but, except for the Blues and the Cardinals, there’s also been a lot of changes over the years. The Browns, the Hawks and the football Cardinals have all left town. We invested heavily to get the Rams. We were once the epicenter for professional wrestling, and we currently support, among other sports, roller derby (ArchRivalRollerGirls.com).

Supporters of pro sports view them as being critical to a major city’s identity and for attracting new businesses. This is backed up with public investments like those in the Jones Dome, Busch III and Scottrade Center. But there are always groups advocating for more and different. One thing St. Louis lacks, in the traditional sense, is a pro basketball team. The Hawks were here from 1955 to 1968, but they were sold and moved to Atlanta. There are also “newer” pro sports leagues that are growing around the country, in sports that appeal more to the younger generations, sports like soccer and lacrosse.

With some regularity, we’ll see proposals, many times in Illinois, to build a new pro sports facility to support one of these new leagues. The Rams continue to make noises about the need to improve or replace the Jones Dome.  We just had a successful weekend of bike racing and the possibility of bringing the Olympics back to St. Louis is always a remote one.  There are those of us who would like to see a bigger investment in expanding our trail system, and there are others who value motorsports like NHRA and NASCAR.  Heck, there are even people willing to spend money watching monster trucks or lawnmower racing.

This all boils down to priorities.  We can’t be everything to everybody, so choices have to be made.  The Cardinals and the Blues seem to be relatively satisfied, for the time being, which leaves everyone else.  Should we focus our efforts on keeping the Rams or should we try to get an Arena Football team?  Would pro soccer be a better investment than pro lacrosse?  And should St. Louis work to keep any new facility in or near downtown, ar should we let other cities in the region share in both the glory and the headaches any pro team brings?

- Jim Zavist

Urban Homesteading Eliminates the Green Acres City vs Country Issue

Forty-four years ago today the CBS TV series Green Acres was first broadcast.  I loved repeats of this series during the 1970s.  Part of me wanted to live in the urban penthouse while another part wanted to try the farming thing.  The show started with Lisa Douglas (Eva Gabor) crying over the prospect of leaving the city to follow her husband’s dream of farming the land:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MohJmg9ku0A

So why am I talking about a campy 60s sitcom?  Last night I listened to Amanda Doyle interview a father (Jules Dervaes) and daughter (Anais Dervaes) on KDHX taking about their urban homestead in Pasadena California where they use their typical urban lot to grow food for themselves and sell the rest to others.

(click image above to view website)

Lisa Douglas didn’t need to be dragged out of the city for Oliver Douglas to farm, a small plot of land in the city is sufficient.   Their website is http://www.pathtofreedom.com/.

The podcast of the interview should be posted on KDHX shortly and is usually available for a week or so.  The podcasts are also on iTunes.

Speaking of farms, today is “Fresh from the Family Farm, a restaurant event to benefit Farm Aid.  Participating restaurants will donate 20% of their September 15 profits to Farm Aid.”  I visited The Terrace View in Citygarden for lunch and will do another restaurant on the participant for dinner tonight.  Will be either Local Harvest Cafe, Stellina Pasta or Pi.

- Steve Patterson

A Pop Culture Look at Urban Renewal From 46 Years Ago Today

In August a couple of friends told me about an episode of ‘Car 54 Where Are You?’ dealing with Urban Renewal. The episode, ‘Occupancy August 1st’, of the police sitcom set in the Bronx, first Aired on October 21, 1962 – forty six years ago tonight. This was five years prior to my birth and although I had heard of the show I don’t recall ever seeing an episode from its 2-season run. Thanks to YouTube I was able to find and watch this episode — what a gem!

The show opens on the construction site of a new public housing project with workers spotting a woman on the 14th floor. The workers thinking she is going to jump call the police. The job foreman calls the Building Commissioner to explain about the woman on the construction site. The Commissioner responds, “Oh no, another delay?”

Officers Toody & Muldoon from Car 54 arrive. When they make their way to the 14th floor (via a beam hoisted by a crane) they find a sweet Jewish woman, Mrs Bronson, setting up home in the unfinished building still lacking walls. They explain to her “you can’t stay here.” She rebuts, “For two years I’ve been waiting to move in and now ‘You can’t stay here.’ In my own apartment I can’t stay?”

She produces a lease which begins on August 1st. In the exchange with the officer she asks what the sign out front says. He responds, “Occupancy August 1st.” What is the date? August 1st.

“In the old tenement when they tore it down for six months they kept nagging with papers and eviction notices. A new apartment they promised me. Now I’m in the new apartment and it’s ‘Get Out, Get Out.”

“I’m back in the Bronx. For two years I lived with my daughter in Brooklyn. She’s a lovely girl but who can live with her.”

Lots of great lines. At one point Mrs Bronson asks the Architect, Hilton Hartford Harlow (played by Charles Nelson Riley), to make sure the electric & gas meters are above the icebox. He indicates the building will have refrigerators and the meters will be in the basement.

“You mean there won’t be electric or gas men to come here to check the meters and their won’t be an ice man to sit and talk with me for a half hour? What are you building for me here a jail? Apartments are for people to visit.”

“But this is progress!” replies the Architect.

“You are making so much progress I could drop dead and nobody would find me in 10 years.”

The 22-minute episode is on YouTube in four segments (Note @ 12:40pm – the embedded video is not working correctly, please use the links to watch the video segments)

Part 1 of 4

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MP_PUhNUYk

Part 2 of 4

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVrAqjH8wDY

Part 3 of 4

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnnOvCkLgeo

Part 4 of 4

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ0qAVH0Tj0

All the characters are in place, the sweet woman that loved her old tenement, the uncaring building commissioner, the architect that cares more about his reputation than building a good space for people. An interesting step back in time indeed.

Anti-Gay Gay Politicians Make Me Sick

We are in the midst of the political season so of course the issue of gay marriage is brought up as a wedge issue, mostly by Republicans against more open minded Democrats. What is interesting is how often the anti-gay politician turns out to be gay himself.

I’ve been out of the closet now for 25 years so I’ve seen quite a few of these guys fall from grace. In the last few years it seems to have accelerated.

Prominent on the list is Senator Larry Craig, who has said he is not gay but was arrested in an airport bathroom for allegedly tapping his foot for something. Of course we have US Rep. Mark Foley sending emails & IM’s to underage male pages. Being gay is fine but targeting minor kids is not. Doing such while speaking out against child predators is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Of course it is not just elected officials caught in a conflict between their words and their actions. Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader that gave spiritual advice to President Bush & top advisors. There are many more and each week the list seems to add new names.

These men have a strong level of self hatred that drives them to speak out against gay rights so strongly in public yet in private live a very different life. Many people are opposed to the concept of gay marriage so while I disagree I must respect their viewpoint. But when that person has built a career opposing gay rights only to turn out to be gay themselves then they’ll get no respect from me. Be in the closet and keep your trap shut.

Personally I think the government needs to be out of the marriage business altogether. If it is this sacred religious institution then let the various religions manage how that is administered. For those that want to simplify issues of property rights, next of kin status and so on they can all have civil unions. Leave “marriage” for church.

Just do me a favor and get the self loathing right-wing windbags to a therapist to deal with their internal issues so they stop spreading their hate to folks that otherswise might be more open minded.

As you might expect this has also impacted more liberal Democrats as well. A few years ago the then New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy disclosed that he was gay. In his own words:

I’ve never been much for self-revelation. In two decades of public life, I always approached the limelight with extreme caution. Not that I kept my personal life off-limits; rather, the personal life I put on display was a blend of fact and fiction. I invented overlapping narratives about who I was, and contrived backstories that played better not just in the ballot box but in my own mind. And then, to the best of my ability, I tried to be the man in those stories.

In this way I’m not at all unique. Inauthenticity is endemic in American politics today. The political backrooms where I spent much of my career were just as benighted as my personal life, equally crowded with shadowy strangers and compromises, truths I hoped to deny. I lived not in one closet but in many. (source)

At least he wasn’t out there saying one thing and doing another.

For a good take on this topic I turn to openly gay US Rep Barney Frank in an appearance on Bill Maher’s program:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlyJmhwa1c0[/youtube]

But I Ain’t No Liberal No More

You’d think conservative would be a good term. After all, we want to conserve the earth’s precious resources right? But it turns out the conservatives have the most liberal environmental policy and the liberals the most conservative. So much for the logic of labels.

The barbershop quartet group, The Foremen, give us there take on liberal and conservative in this funny video. For those with broken sarcasm meters, trust me when I say these guys are very much on the left. Enjoy:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfnZOZ_LQcU[/youtube]

You can get the lyrics from Foreman Roy Zimmerman.

Given that the presidential primary is only six weeks away, I think we’ll hear more and more about liberals and conservatives until then.

The End of the Universe Caused by Starbucks?

Comedian Lewis Black has a funny take on the end of the world, which has says he has seen.  The cause?  A Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9iMgSNrwv4[/youtube]

I’ve been to such a place in Vancouver.  There I was, on one corner of an intersection about to enter a Starbucks and across the street was another Starbucks.

Of course Lewis Black is not alone in making fun of Starbucks.  The excellent mockumentary Best in Show also takes a turn talking about Starbucks:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQKdEdzHnfU [/youtube]

The Simpson’s have also shown Starbucks taking over the Springfield Mall while South Park had a similar gag with a “Harbuck’s” running the local coffee shop out of business.

Christmas With the Conner Family

The Roseanne show was with us for nine TV seasons and in that time many of us became attached to the Conner family. Not since the days of say Good Times had we seen a working family in a sitcom situation, going through real life issues such as living paycheck to paycheck, changing jobs, teen sex, family dynamic, drugs and so on. The show, starring hometown boy John Goodman, made numerous references to St. Louis and Chicago over the years.

Here is a Christmas clip running just under 10 minutes:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiDur1jpI3c[/youtube]

Not their best, although it includes the late Shelley Winters as Nana Mary. Winters was born in St. Louis in 1920.

Below is another clip from another seasons with Roseanne playing Santa in the mall. This clip shows the ongoing struggle between Roseanne and Darlene:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmm7kcgLJ7Y[/youtube]

In the end their relationship is still rocky but they’ve had some meaningful communication.  Nothing earth shattering here, I just love the show.