Wildwood Should Retain What’s Left Of Its Rural Character

The Post-Dispatch has an interesting story in the paper titled; Suburbia, horse country collide.

It seems the Wildwood City Council is considering a measure to limit the size of outbuildings. This is not uncommon as most municipalities have such ordinances. However, most do not have such large parcels of land. A newly formed group, Wildwood Horse Owners & Acreage Association, or WHOA for short is fighting to maintain the rural rights to barns and stables:

The organization opposes a plan before the City Council tonight to limit the size of unattached “accessory” buildings to 1.5 percent of the square footage of a property parcel. It would set a maximum building size of 6,500 square feet without special City Hall permission.

The proposed legislation, bill #1245, can be read here. I can see how people might not want someone building a barn bigger than the house on a 3 acre lot. But on land of say 20 acres a large barn seems like a basic element. I support keeping the rural character of Wildwood and don’t care for all the new McMansion subdivisions.

Still, I’ve seen some awful new metal barns and indoor riding arenas. It is one thing to argue for the right to keep horses and quite another to put up some enormous boring beige metal box. Wildwood probably needs to do some combination of both, limit size for smaller parcels (under 3 acres) and create some design guidelines for structures on larger sections.

Riding lessons are still on my to-do list. Maybe for 2006…

– Steve

Preservation Board to Determine Fate of St. Aloysius Gonzaga Complex

Last month the St. Louis Preservation Board, appointed by the mayor, rubber stamped the demolition of the Doering Mansion on the bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River. That same rubber stamp will likely be pulled from the political desk drawer to approve the razing of the St. Aloysius Gonzaga complex for 23 single family homes.

From the Suburban Journals on 9/28/2005:

Father Vince Bommarito, the priest of St. Ambrose Parish, said there was a conscious decision to not have the buildings of St. Aloysius remain intact.

“That church is actually older than St. Ambrose. People are committed to the brick and mortar. To turn that over to somebody else would be difficult for the people to handle in the long run,” Bommarito said.

St. Aloysius Parish was made part of St. Ambrose Parish when the archdiocese closed St. Aloysius at the end of June.

Huh? It would be difficult to see someone else reuse their old church so leveling the site is somehow better? The neighbor I spoke to is glad the area will be used for residential but likes the old buildings and trees. When I spoke to her today she was under the impression it was a done deal. With that pro-demo rubber stamp awaiting the preservation board it might be a done deal. But I’ve never let political pressure stop me from speaking my mind before.

… Continue Reading

Miklasz asks “is it too late to put the old Busch back together again?”

Local sports writer Bernie Miklasz had a great column in yesterday’s St. Louis Post Dispatch.

I don’t normally reprint full columns but the Post-Dispatch’s links expire in a couple of weeks. So, to keep a permanent record, here is his must-read column:

Miklasz raises some very good points about the arguments used to get the new stadium — the old stadium was a money pit and we need to compete with other teams. Now that it is too late it is beginning to look like St. Louis may have been snookered.

I enjoy watching baseball games in person. I’m not a devoted fan but on the times I’ve gone to the game I had a great time and paid close attention to what was happening on the field. While we like a winning team I think St. Louis fans have proven they’ll support the Cardinals win or lose. Sure, they’ll bitch about players or management making bad decisions but they will still line up to buy tickets. Only now they’ll pay more for the right to watch a game and with salaries not increasing as expected, maybe we won’t be so competitive after all. But the team owners will have more money in their pockets and their investment will be worth substantially more. Seems par for the course…

On a somewhat related note, my State Representative, Jeanette Mott Oxford, and Fred Lindeke will be in court on Wednesday December 14th at 9am:

If you can attend to show support for Mott Oxford and Lindeke go to the Wainwright Building, Division One.

I don’t always agree with the view of the economists at the St. Louis Federal reserve but I found an interesting article on public funding of stadiums from 2001:

Cities go to great lengths to lure a new team to town or to keep the home team home. They feel compelled to compete with other cities that offer new or updated facilities; otherwise, the home team might make good on its threat to leave. The weight of economic evidence, however, shows that taxpayers spend a lot of money and ultimately don’t get much back.

I highly recommend reading the full article. Please remember, just because you love baseball and the Cardinals doesn’t mean you must love the team’s owners or that we must give them what they ask for. As responsible citizens it is our duty to educate ourselves, question leadership and challenge assumptions.

– Steve

RIP: Busch Stadium 1966 – 2005

All night long crowds gathered to watch the last of Busch Stadium fall.

One thing occurred to me, I have never seen so many people on these sidewalks on a non-game day. It was nice.

Then it happened…

… Continue Reading

Assumptions And Perspectives May Vary

Following my post on Sunday entitled ‘Festivus vs. Rams’ I had a very good face-to-face conversation with a friend of mine that happened to have a different take than I did on the benefit of the dome on downtown. In short, he argued the early 1990s dome and convention center expansion was positive.

Again, he is a friend and I value his opinions. It was a good conversation, one that you can’t get from short blog posts and the subsequent comments. What I got from our conversation was a much different view on things than I have but also a better understanding of how someone might conclude this makes a positive contribution.

His view in favor of the dome went something like this:

Before the dome was built the area was a dump.

Tony’s restaurant was isolated.

The bus station wasn’t attractive.

Much of the area was just surface parking lots.

The dome & expansion cleaned up the area and gave it some physical form beyond random buildings and surface lots.

Without the possibility of football the city never would have done anything with the area.

The last bit is the key to our different perspective. I’ve been arguing what could have been instead of an expanded convention center & football stadium while others, like my friend, are of the belief that if we didn’t build what we have now we never would have done anything with the area. So at the very least the dome is positive in that it was something. Both perspectives are valid, neither is right or wrong.

Yes, had the convention center and dome site been left as-is the downtown area wouldn’t be the same, or as positive. And I’ll even go along with the idea the area could very well be sitting there the same (or worse) today had we not expanded the convention center and built the dome. If that were indeed the case then the loft district and other improvements in downtown would not be where they are today.

But, this is all assuming A) the convention center and dome were the only alternatives for the area and B) that nothing else would have gotten built in the last 15 years.

So bear with me oh great Rams fans. Step back to the mid to late 80’s when Bill Bidwell wanted his own stadium or he’d pull the football Cardinals from St. Louis (as it in fact did). What if we would have built a stadium on the Pruitt-Igoe site then? What if we had put the football Cardinals in Metro East along what was then a future MetroLink route?

Stay with me on this…

With a football stadium added to the region near downtown the current convention center & dome site in the early 90’s would still have been a mess with Tony’s the only ray of hope. But we wouldn’t have spent a few extra hundred million losing a team and then spending eight years trying to get one back. That time lost and effort spent was costly. Not that it would have actually happened but humor me and wonder if the convention/dome area had been remade into a vibrant part of downtown — keep street grid, new shops & retail, new residential buildings, more restaurants to compliment Tony’s.

What’s done is done. We have the dome and convention center already. It is better than the nearly vacant mess that was there because it adds people to the area. But, I still think, in hindsight, the area could have made a much greater contribution to downtown. The purpose of this exercise is not to beat up the people that made the decisions in the 50’s-70’s to raze buildings for parking or to make those that enjoy a Rams game to feel guilty about the area. No, the purpose is to learn what have we done in the past and why. What can we learn from this to help us in future decisions?

I want us to expand our thinking when it comes to new projects.

In many respects I believe we are still in a 1950’s “urban renewal” mode of thinking — that everything must be located downtown; that we must create neat & tidy districts of narrowly defined uses; that everything needs parking; and that a few big events or venues is better than blocks and blocks of smaller activities.

St. Louis, prior to the 50’s, had shopping, entertainment and workplaces spread throughout the city. These were connected both by streetcars and roads for cars. Downtown was the center of activity but it wasn’t where everything had to be.

The fact we placed the symphony hall on Grand rather than downtown in 1968 is a very good thing. But trying to build an arts and entertainment district around it and the Fox is a bad thing. We should have art, entertainment, sports, retail, restaurants, residences, and workplaces everywhere — not just in districts. But I’m getting off track, I’ll have to come back to this another time.

My main thought is when I post about a project not being the best or most urban it is on the assumption that we could have done better. I now know that some of you will have the assumption that as least we did something. Maybe I’m being too optimistic (or naive)? But just maybe some of you are not giving the region enough credit for being able to rebuilt the core into a world class city.

– Steve