Patterson to Speak on Convergence in Journalism

Today I will be participating in a panel discussing the convergence of technology in journalism at a luncheon of the Society of Professional Journalists. Despite protests saying I’m not a journalist, much less professional, I was asked to participate. I have been paid for writing so perhaps I am a professional writer? The other panelists are the real deal, Dale Singer of the Post-Dispatch and Bill Raack, KWMU’s News Director. The moderator will be David Nicklaus of the Post-Dispatch.

I was introduced to the term “Convergence Journalism” in a way typical of blogging — through a comment on a post. Regular readers my recall this comment from “Megan” from earlier this year:

I am a Journalism student at the University of Missouri-Columbia. I heard about your blog through various sources and I decided to check it out.

Recently, in one of my Journalism classes we discussed the dangers of blogging to the field of Convergence Journalism. The Convergence field of Journalism is a newly recognized (it is the first year this sequence has been offered at MIZZOU) sequence that focuses mostly on Online Publishing and Online Periodicals (CBSNews.com, etc). The problem of blogging is that in creating a blog and deeming it a title so decidedly journalistically inclined as the “Urban Review” you are lending a false credibility to yourself and, in essence, misleading those who may misinterpret your articles as truth instead of simply your opinion. I am sure that you think that you are very unbiased but the truth is that as a Journalism student I am horrified at what blogs like yours will mean for the future of Convergence Journalism. I can see that you have been praised by several in my future chosen field, but I am simply horrified and insulted by your irresponsible use of a blog for your own ulterior motives.

While accepting my role in local media I have never once called myself a journalist. The various roles are certainly melding together and technology changes. Nearly everyone reading my site gets that I am espousing my own opinion, not presenting an unbiased look at the built environment.

Naturally I contacted Mizzou’s School of Journalism to see what it is they are teaching that got Megan so upset as to call me “irresponsible.” Here is a response from one of the professors in Convergence Journalism:

While I can’t speak on behalf of the entire Convergence faculty, the student’s views as expressed on your blog comments do not reflect my views and I suspect they are not at all representative of the views of my colleagues on the Convergence faculty. I don’t think Megan is actually a student in the Convergence sequence as she seems to have an unclear idea of what our program is all about.

It wouldn’t shock me if there were some journalism faculty who shared her views, but I hope her notions of blogging are a result of youth and inexperience and not something she was told in class. When I was her age I thought I knew everything too.

Convergence is all around us. The Post-Dispatch is beginning to incorporate video on stltoday.com, TV stations have written stories on their websites, and radio stations are including written stories as well as having podcasts available for download. Video, audio and the written word are all coming together from formerly separate sources. Everyone is learning as major newspapers now find themselves competing not only with TV, Radio and weekly papers but with small papers such as the Arch City Chronicle. TV stations, limited by time, are competing with more detailed video from sources such as PubDef. I have no stats to prove my theory but I believe as people continue to read sites such as this they are reducing their use of more traditional media.

On a side note, today’s luncheon will be held in a blighted area. Yes, those brave journalists are making their way to a blighted area awaiting redevelopment. Don’t worry for them, however, as the luncheon is in Clayton at the upscale Bar Napoli. Centene corporation plans to raze most of the block to expand their headquarters.

– Steve

MetroLink’s 8-Mile Cross County Extension To Open August 28th

Metro, the St. Louis regional transit agency, is expected to announce today the ribbon cutting for the 8-mile ‘Cross County’ will be held on Saturday August 26, 2006 with regular service commencing on Monday, August 28, 2006. Limited, but free, sample rides are expected on the 26th & 27th.

The 28th is a big day of changes as new bus routes will take affect to coincide with the new light rail. New fares for bus and rail service will also make their debut on the 28th. Regular bus fare will increase from $1.65 to $1.75. A one-way ticket on MetroLink will increase from $1.75 to $2.00.

For more information on schedules and fares see Metro.

– Steve

A Sneak Peek at MetroLink’s Cross County Line on August 22

Rail advocacy group Citizens for Modern Transit are offering a unique opportunity — a chance to ride the new Cross County extension of the MetroLink system before the opening to the general public:

Metro is on the brink of opening the next major extension of MetroLink for the St. Louis Region. It is an exciting time especially for members of CMT/WTS/COMTO – here is your chance to have a Sneak Peek Ride of the new alignment before it opens to the general public. Seating is limited so please reserve your spot early.

You will need to arrive at the Shrewsbury-Lansdowne I-44 Park-Ride Lot on Lansdowne at River Des Peres between 5 and 6:30 p.m. Rides will run on the new alignment between 5 and 7 p.m. Make history with Metro and CMT . . . get on board today!

I’ve already signed up for the August 22 event with a cost of only $5 for CMT members ($10 for non-members). To register click here.

This gives us a clue about the official public opening of MetroLink — sometime after August 22nd. I’m guessing it will be sometime the following week or perhaps just a few days later. It has been many years and many hundreds of millions in the making but I’m glad we are finally at this point. Our region is about to get a renewed interest in rail transit.

– Steve

Eminent Domain: Where Do We Go From Here?

The phrase ‘Eminent Domain’ has become as evil a phrase in the city as ‘Urban Renewal’, maybe more. I’ve yet to take a strong position on this debate so it is time I correct that. Click here to read a prior post on eminent domain from October 2005.

I’m going to start by putting on my best political top hat, ride the fence, and state the obvious:

Eminent Domain is a very useful tool that does have its place.

Eminent Domain has been increasingly abused, to a point beyond excessive.

Both sides of the debate on Eminent Domain need to step back and look for common ground.

Nobody wins as long as this debate continues.

The above are pretty much “safe” positions for one to take. In other words, no real substance. But I’m a substance kinda guy so here it goes.

No eminent domain for a Wal-Mart!!! Nor for any other “big box” store, chain or local. Don’t even think about taking someone’s personal home.

On the other side of the coin if we, as a city, through a quality urban planning process decide we need a new park, school or library then yes, I can see the use of eminent domain — even possibly taking someone’s personal residence. But I’d want to see hard evidence of two things, 1) the need does exist and 2) all other possible sites do not work.

Everything else is a very subjective quality issue for me. Take, for example, the recent issue in Richmond Heights of the area known as Hadley Township. I’ll be the first to admit that I probably wouldn’t be as upset about the use of eminent domain had the city selected the truly urban proposal from Conrad Properties. Some may claim I’m inconsistent or a hypocrite but let me elaborate.

Many things can be accomplished through good zoning. Dense & walkable neighborhoods can be created where suburban sprawl once existed. Increased density around a transit stop is, in my view, in the public good and therefore at least worthy of consideration for the use of eminent domain. Zoning in smart cities offers developers incentives as trade off for things in the public interest. Other times the incentives become mandates. So, if a developer is seeking eminent domain for an area I think they’ve got to earn it. This means to me minimum densities, little to no surface parking, 2-story minimum building heights (more depending upon circumstances), relationship with the sidewalk, bike parking, mixed uses and so on.

None of the requirements should be punitive to the developer but instead offer rewards for creating good urban design. This might mean the developer gets to build a floor or two higher than normally allowed or gets reduced parking requirements. By designing the zoning in such a way as to require good urban in-fill as a condition for the use of eminent domain then I can possibly be convinced a private development is in the best interests of the public.

A typical sprawl center, like Loughborough Commons now under construction, is not nor will it ever be in the public good to the point it justified the use (or threat of use) to take those people’s homes. It was wrong. More than enough land existed to create the horrible shopping center.

I think to some developers the project just is not complete unless they take away someone else’s property. If they’ve got 1 acre they want 2, if they have 6 they want 8. You don’t have to have an entire city block to build new construction! If you have a lot with 100 feet of frontage by 125 foot deep design a building to fit that parcel, don’t complain the guy next door won’t sell his vacant 50 foot wide lot. I think much of our areas are stagnant because developers waste precious time trying to find ways to assemble increasingly larger and larger parcels for overly complicated projects. In the meantime years go by and nothing is built. If you’ve got more than 25 feet of width you can construct a new building. Deal with it. Build on it or sell it to someone that will.

However, maybe I can be in a position at some point to take the as-yet-built McDonald’s on Grand and raze it for something urban? That might be the trick, if you build low-density suburban crap in the city you leave yourself wide open for eminent domain for a project achieving certain set criteria.

Eminent domain for road building should be a thing of the past, at least in established areas. We’ve got all the roads we need. Well, with a slight exception — I want back many of the streets and alleys that have been vacated over the years. Eminent domain to reclaim previously public streets and alleys should stick around. I should also separate out roads from highways. Building a new road to connect the street grid together is probably a good thing. Taking property for more highways, no so good.

And yes, on my site I am judge and jury. I’m making highly subjective value judgments. I know that, not necessary to point it out. Our zoning codes are entirely subjective value judgments — ours just happen to be based on what bureaucrats & officials thought in the late 1940s. Newly revised zoning codes would not say, “call Steve Patterson to find out the answer.” No, new zoning codes can incorporate judgments related to supporting our old urbanism as well as thinking from new urbanism. Let’s at least get to the point where we are debating the finer points of a new zoning code. Then, and probably only then, can we make any rational decisions around the use of eminent domain.

– Steve

Conlon Files for Recount, Starts Legal Defense Fund

Mary Beth Conlon, the candidate for Overland Mayor that lost by a mere four votes in the April election, has filed suit in St. Louis County court to request a manual recount. Recounts are permitted under Missouri law when the difference is less than 1%, in this case it was 0.12%.

On her website, Mary Beth Conlon is asking for assistance with the fund to help offset legal costs in filing the lawsuit requesting the recount. She is asking that contributions be sent to:

Mary Beth Conlon Legal Defense Fund
8933 Argyle Avenue
Overland, MO 63114

It does not appear that either Conlon or her main opponent had a candidate committee established with the Missouri Ethics Commission. These candidates likely paid for all their campaign expenses out of pocket. Having done so, I can see not having personal funds left to challenge the final count.

I will continue to monitor this situation and will head out to Overland soon to look into the design & development of the municipality.

– Steve