Some Expectations For 2011
Wow, 2011 already? Â In my 20+ years in St. Louis I’ve seen a lot of good & Â bad change, I suspect both will continue. Hopefully the good will outnumber the bad.
This year the city, like the states, faces the issue of redistricting. A decade ago it got ugly! St. Louis made the national news when 20th ward Ald Irene Smith allegedly urinated into a trash can rather than cease a filibuster on redistricting.
“Twas the whiz heard ’round the globe as Ald. Irene Smith apparently decided she’d rather fill a bucket than give up a filibuster. Shielded by aldermanic allies, the alderwoman-with-‘tude — a former city judge, mind you — allegedly peed in a garbage can after she was refused a potty break during a rigorous redistricting debate.” (RFT)
Click here to see video from that meeting.
Missouri & Illinois will each lose one seat in the US House of Representatives, but the total remains at 435. In the city the total remains, for now, at a staggering 28 – the same number as when the city had half a million more residents.
So for the city the issue becomes how to draw the new ward boundary lines with an equal number of constituents. Will the changes in population result in fewer predominantly white wards? Fewer black wards? Will the lines be drawn so that we might see an Asian or Hispanic ward so that our representatives better reflect our population numbers?
And just what will our population be? Will this be the first decennial census in decades that we’ve not lost population? Â Did St. Louis County lose population?
In a few days the filing will close for the spring 2011 elections, half of the Board of Aldermen (even numbered wards) as well as the President of the Board.
In April voters will decide if we continue to collect the earnings tax on the wages of residents as well as those who work in the city.
We should expect to see some construction start on the first phase of Ballpark Village. Who knows what year we will see the rest of the site completed, hopefully before the Cardinals want to replace the 2006 stadium.
The opera house formerly known as Kiel will reopen this year as the Peabody.
The clock is ticking on the Rams lease for the dome, expect some maneuvers in 2011 that will hint at if the Rams will exercise their option to get out of the lease if the done is not in the top quarter of the NFL. It won’t be. I think they will get out of the lease in 2012 but stay put because options for an other facility are slim. California can’t afford to bankroll a new stadium to get the Rams to return to Los Angeles. Â The real action will be in 2012 though.
Some long-established businesses will fold in 2011, no doubt blaming the new smoke-free law that starts tomorrow. There are some places I look forward to visiting again but others that I think will need a few months to air out. Â I’ve already visited some formerly smoking places that decided to get a head start by going smoke-free in 2010. Â I still haven’t decided how much effort I’m going to put into making complaints against establishments that deliberately don’t comply.
I don’t expect to see a lot of new construction to review. Â This is probably a good thing as most new construction is so horribly anti-pedestrian.
Overall I’m far more optimistic than pessimistic about 2011. Are you?
– Steve Patterson
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have “black” or “white” wards, we'd have wards that followed natural geographic neighborhood boundaries. We don't live in a perfect world, we live in St. Louis, so I hope, at minimum, that a “Bosnian” ward is defined.
The bigger question is what defines and binds us? Is it race? Geography? Socio-economic status? Age? Gender? Sexual orientation? Political party? Religion? Parish? High school 😉 ? Rap sheet? NRA membership? All of these? And, are we better off having homogenous representatives, to advocate limited, parochial agendas? Or, are we better off having representatives with fewer vocal special interests or agendas?
Outside of city hall (sort of), I expect the biggest issue locally in 2011 will be the earnings tax election. Between scare tactics from the government employees and threats of massive service cuts, it's going to make a very interesting campaign. And I agree, the Rams are going to have an uphill battle trying to get a new stadium, to keep up with (Jerry) Jones . . .
When wards are created based on population the odds of 28 wards fitting neatly into 79 neighborhoods just isn't realistic. Decisions must be made about how to divide the population into 28 wards. That should best reflect the population. Yes, Bosnian representation would be good.
Yes, but…The era of wards such as the 20th, 6th or 9th needs to end. They defy logic in their shape.
I wouldn't dismiss out-of-hand the idea of the Rams returning to Los Angeles. Yes, there are two competing stadium proposals for the LA area–one downtown next to the Staples Center, the other in the City of Industry–but the NFL has made it clear that they want to have a presence back in the second-largest TV market. In fact, the NFL would prefer two teams back in LA, presumably one from each conference. My prediction is that by the end of the teens, Los Angeles will host two prodigal teams who will have returned “home,” the San Diego Chargers and the St. Louis Rams. Meanwhile, St. Louis, due to its TV-market size and its position relative to even larger markets, will present itself as a suitable home for the Jacksonville Jaguars, thereby squaring that circle which opened up in the 1993 NFL expansion (with bonus points being offered up when the Jaguars get renamed to the Stallions). The relocated Jaguars will ask for renovations within the Dome that will be touted as being less expensive than a new stadium built somewhere along the I-270/255 belt, and they'll get them.
“Will the changes in population result in fewer predominantly white wards? Fewer black wards? Will the lines be drawn so that we might see an Asian or Hispanic ward so that our representatives better reflect our population numbers?”
No on all counts; the careful balance of an even number of black and white wards is too important to the political machine to sacrifice. Sad but true.
Hey, i'm a big user of meetup.com. Just an idea – have you given any thought to creating some sort of urban group and do urban activities as well as attending city wide events? It might help spread the word even more too.
I can't personally take that on, besides, there are already a number of groups. Goggle City Affair.
Steve, you left out Northside & McKee! You have to have some strong opinions on that one or at least take a stab at a prediction. Personally, I think it is the year for a new 22nd street interchange or bust. I predict a hard long decade for St. Louis if they can't pull off a infrastructure project that actually returns street grid for west downtown with a blessing from MoDOT, with or without McKee. This project should be a stepping stone for bigger infrastructure changes, Arch Grounds and new Memorial Drive replacing I-70 downtown.
While I'm not going along with two LA teams, one being the Rams. At least not yet. I'm going for Jaguars headed that way in the very near future or by 2014/2015 However, come 2014 you will see two teams with a lot politics going on as each try to get new stadiums, Vikings and Rams. Then the question becomes, will a second LA stadium deal materialize for either one of those teams to move by 2020. By 2020, you could ask the same for Houston as LA. Two teams or not?
My guess is the Northside project will be tied up in the courts in 2011 and MoDOT won't have/find any money for a new 22nd Street interchange. I agree that they should happen, I just don't see them happening until 2014, at the very earliest.
Agree with the no money part from the state. I was dissappointed in the fact that the city didn't find a way to take advantage of America Build bonds. They expired and were not part of the tax package passed at the end of the year. Yes, it would have been a burden on budget, but the deal that the Feds were offering was as good as it gets and something like the 22nd street interchange or even the North Treste greenway would have been a good fit.
St. Louis County did take advantage of the America Build bonds earlier in the year. I believe they are financing 60 million in building construction.
McKee's project may very well completely unravel. As you indicate, that leaves the 22nd Interchane area as a huge hole, along with the Pruitt-Igoe site, that must be addressed. Maybe those two become possible locations for a new football stadium?
If you want to eliminate a real barrier between downtown and north city, put a/the new football stadium in Fenton, tear down the Jones Dome, and restore some of the old street grid.
Agreed, I'm on record thinking the CBD is no place for a football stadium. Like malls, football stadiums belong far from the core.
Why? Sports stadiums provide economic stimulus for the urban core and contribute to identity and vibrancy in the heart of a city. They also demand that a CBD be walkable and serviced by public transit for the fans who attend games.
Just ask anybody in Denver what brought about its downtown renewal and the answer almost always starts with, “Coors Field”. Denver has each of the big four sports teams housed in its CBD and it is far more livable, walkable and vibrant than Kansas City (where I currently live) whose stadiums are on the periphery of the city limits where it is impossible to get to without driving. Meanwhile greater downtown KC struggles to find an identity and has far less life than comparable cities with downtown sports stadiums.
I am not saying that this correlation in relative livability suggests direct relation, but I just want to point out that livability and sports stadiums in the CBD are not mutually exclusive.
I only wish my city had had the foresight to move the stadiums into greater downtown ten years ago when they had the chance.
You are correct that Denver has its four sports teams in the urban core, although I'd argue that all three facilities are in the CBD. Coors Field and Busch Stadium (baseball) are comparably located, and Scottrade is actually closer to the urban core than the Pepsi Center (basketball and hockey). Invesco Field (football) is actually about where the Metro light rail mainenance facility is at Jefferson and I-64 – “walkable” only if you have your hiking boots on.
The three bigger questions are whether any athletic facility, and especially one for football, is an economic generator, whether or not a football stadium should have downtown as a backdrop for TV, and how much should public transit be onsidered? I'd argue that, with only 8-12 games per year, that football is the lowest generator. Having downtown as a backdrop is certainly a bonus, but has no direct impact in places like Dallas, New York or Tampa. If we want the arch in our obligatory exterior shots, substitute East St, Louis for Fenton and call it good.
Finally, transit. For both baseball and hockey, transit availability and usage are comparable in the two cities. The big difference is in football. RTD, in Denver, has provided BroncosRide for years, first with buses, then adding light rail, and has a culture of fans riding. Metro does/can not provide nearly the same level of service, so far fewer fans use their services. With Invesco Field replacing Milr High Stadium on the same site, much like Busch here, there were no changes in travel patterns, although there was a season of reduced public parking while bus parking was maintained. But the real challenge remains numbers – moving 50-60,000 after a football game is harder on both transit and highways than moving 20-30,000 after a basball or hockey game.
Invesco has its own light rail station and is easily accessed to the CBD on foot via sidewalks or the Platte River/Cherry Creek trails (trust me I have done it plenty of times). Sure it's a little bit of a walk but I would hardly say that it is a sizable distance from the downtown street grid. Or you can hop back on light rail and head right into Union Station.
But I am splitting hairs. I will concede that having an NFL stadium downtown may not be the economic generator that other land uses might provide. But I still don't think that it is wise to put a facility that draws 70,000 fans (not sure what the Rams draw) 8-10 times per year out in the exurbs. I really think that Denver has it right: put the facility near but not directly in the CBD and find other tenants besides the NFL team (e.g. professional lacrosse) to fill the off-season.
You are probably right, the Jones Dome is an example of very poor land use. It definitely does provide a huge barrier between downtown and north city. Even if the I-70 lanes are removed the dome will still stand as a huge barrier between the riverfront and much of downtown. But there have got to be areas that are on transit and within walking distance to the CBD, right? But then again, I don't live in STL.
Certainly the Ed Jones Dome is a barrier in that the street grid is disrupted and it is a big building, but cripes, you can walk along Broadway to areas north of the stadium. And if I70 were ever removed, a new boulevard might be the path of choice to the Bottle District anyway.
It has also been pointed out in other forums that areas to the west of the Dome are not walled off from the north and yet little development has occured.
I agree that little used football stadiums (8 regular season home dates) tend to become black holes within their immediate footprints and so are not the best ways to develop the CBD. These campuses should be out where infrastructure is equipped to handle the crush of car traffic nad parking requirements. Public transit is not going to be answer for 70,000+ fans all converging on one place at one time anyway.
That said, the Dome is not why areas immediately north of Downtown aren't developed. I think the Dome becomes a convenient punching bag for folks very frustrated with slow or no development in the area. As new developments shape areas south of the Dome and with possibilities for development east and north at least being discussed, a refurbished Dome might be a nice compliment to an entertaiment/retail enclave much like the Georgia Dome down in the Georgia World Congress Center campus down in Atlanta.
I'm with Bunche, Why? From Pittsburgh, to Chicago, to Cinci to Cleveland. You got a lot of stadiums in the core. Better yet, they are along or near defining features of their cities it either be rivers or lakes.
I do agree, Convention business trying to run a stadium doesn't make a whole lot of sense and the dome was poorly incorporated into the existing facility. In that respect, tear it down!!
Pro football happens about 10 days a year; 12-13 if you make the playoffs. That leaves 350+ days a year of empty inactivity. And with a capacity around 55,000, and 3/4 driving, you need, what, at least 20,000, invariably surface, parking spaces? That's not a recipe for a vibant downtown.
Pittsburgh's is downtown, with shared parking structures. Indianapolis is in what passes for their downtown. Chicago and Cinci are like Denver and Nashville – near enough to be seen, but not in the heart. What we have now isn't a very good football facility nor a very good convention facility, yet it creates a physical barrier for downtown, north of Washington, between 9th and Broadway (5th), combined with I-70 between Broadway and 2nd! If we want to wall off the Bottle District, we've done a great job!
Surface parking lots do absolutely detract from the vibrancy of a downtown. How much surface parking is there that serves the Jones Dome? I can't recall anything comparable to what surrounds Arrowhead or Kaufman Stadiums near the dome in St. Louis (I really don't know for sure). I am just not sure that I agree that parking for a downtown stadium has to be surface. I am not sure that it can be. In fact the Sprint Center/Power and Light District now reside on what used to be acres of surface lots (and a few demolished buildings) in Kansas City. This in a city that has minimal public transit (with headways of an hour on most lines during games/nighttime).
Surface parking lots are usually the answer for football-only facilities due to simple economics – it costs 3 times as much to build structured parking, and if you can only charge for them 10-20 days a year, payback stretches into decades.
I do agree that having public transit available is certainly a positive. That's why I think the ideal location would be on the riverfront in East St. Louis, just north of the Eads Bridge and the Casino Queen. The transit and freeway infrastructure are both already in place, and the arch frames the city perfectly. The two big negatives are both location driven, it's not in Missouri and it is in ESL.