I hope that the developments on MLK focus on rehab and not tearing down every vacant building...



City earmarks millions for street improvements

By Elisa Crouch

Of the Post-Dispatch

01/15/2005



In many cities, they stand as sad, dilapidated monuments to a civil rights hero.



With the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday Monday, focus in St. Louis and around the country turns to the streets that bear his name.



Nationwide, at least 730 streets are named after King, including in St. Louis, Alton, East St. Louis and Kinloch, according to a geographer who's mapped them. They weave through every state and most cities, through places like Elgin, Texas, and Salt Lake City. The come in all sizes, from the 13-mile drive in Chicago, to a street about 500 feet long in Marianna, Fla.



More get added to the map each year. While some of the streets are prestigious boulevards, such as in Atlanta, many others cut through long abandoned neighborhoods.



"When you go on the streets named after Martin Luther King you end up on some of the worst-looking streets in the country," St. Louis Alderman Peggy Ryan said.



That's something neighborhood groups and local governments nationwide are trying to change. These efforts are not guided by any centralized organization, just the common belief that a street named after King should be a better tribute.



In Little Rock, Ark., a coalition of neighborhood associations plants trees and picks up litter along the city's MLK drive.



In Jacksonville, Fla., the city recently built sidewalks and bike paths along its MLK boulevard and a nonprofit group called Social Compact put together a neighborhood analysis to help the local chamber of commerce attract new business there.



In St. Louis, the city will spend $7.8 million over the next three years on improvements to Martin Luther King Drive.



The five-mile stretch of road extends from North Tucker Boulevard downtown to the Wellston border and has become known for its rows of vacant buildings and broken glass. Along the drive, shopkeepers are holding out hope that eventually, new businesses will add variety to the smattering of chop suey joints, pawnshops and beauty parlors. They hope to add to the spark of development that occurred along the street since 2000, including a new strip mall, a handful of stores, a Blockbuster video and a few new restaurants.



"Everything will help," said Terry Liberman, co-owner of Easton Loan, which has been in the neighborhood since 1928. "Any effort to make it look nicer will encourage someone to take a risk and open something."



Crews are laying conduits for new street lights between Grand Boulevard and Kingshighway, the start of the $7.8 million improvement project. Next along that stretch will come new sidewalks, curbs and trees.



In 2006, crews are scheduled to begin the second phase: laying fresh asphalt, improving drains and curbs between the north city limits and Kingshighway. In 2007, the same kind of fix is scheduled on Martin Luther King Drive between Kingshighway and Jefferson Avenue.



"One of our goals is to improve Dr. Martin Luther King Drive, not only the actual street itself, but improve the way the whole street looks from city limits to downtown," said Ryan, who co-sponsored the funding ordinance with Aldermen April Ford Griffin, Terry Kennedy, Michael McMillan and Frank Williamson.



Several who live or work along the street say they welcome the public investment. The problems are massive, they say. Buildings need to be razed and incentive programs put together, they said. The money is a start.



"Of course, we would like to see $80 million rather than $8 million because historically Martin Luther King (Drive) has been overlooked," said Steve Roberts, whose company, Roberts Brothers Properties, has invested millions of dollars in the area since the 1980s. "It will definitely be significant. Is it enough? No. I'd like to see a 10-year plan that could assist us in making these public improvements."



Before aldermen renamed the street Martin Luther King Drive in 1972, part of it was named Easton Avenue after the early 19th-century judge, postmaster, congressman and a founding father of Alton. But even then western migration was draining the street and its surrounding neighborhoods of many middle-class residents. Businesses soon followed.



Several churches along the street are addressing pervasive problems such as drug addiction and lack of parenting skills. The Williams Temple Church of God in Christ has a neighborhood outreach center that helps people achieve homeownership and earn their GEDs.



Linda Thompson, the center director, said a street named after King should be cared for.



"We were able to get some recognition for him, finally get the city to change the name," she said. "Then what do you do with it? We need to treat it like a child. Do you abuse it or do you love it?"



Roberts said his company this year plans to start building another strip center along Martin Luther King Drive. It would be similar to the one the Roberts Brothers built at Kingshighway, he said, now 90 percent occupied by mostly national chain stores.



"This is a large, historically important area in the African-American community that once upon a time had middle-class families living in this area with businesses and services that have left," Roberts said. "We have slowly been bringing professionals and retailers back. We want to continue that."

(like i said at SSP), the Roberts brothers are well intentioned, but they wouldn't know good urban design if it bit them in the ass. Strip malls aren't going to bring back MLK, they need to think BIG and OUTSIDE THE BOX.

Phrases like, 'everything will help' and 'take a risk and open something'--both quotes from the article--reveal a critical lack among those who hope to redevelop MLK Drive--namely, an idea about what this street, and the communities around it, are now and can/should be in future.



This is typical of blighted neighborhoods, where residents and business owners grasp desperately for solutions, investing in transitory commercial trends while ignoring the distinctive character, opportunities and needs in their own communities.



A mini-mall will not solve the problems that come from housing patterns segregated by race and class--and the underlying fear and mistrust that enable them to persist.

So much more money needs to be poured into this strip it isn't funny. $4-million was put on Delmar between Skinker and DeBaliviere, which is tiny compared to the entire MLK strip, but I guess it's a start. By the way, is this a city arterial road or state road? It's D downtown, then D splits into Page Ave. at Grand Blvd. Then MLK becomes St. Charles Rock Rd. (or 180 and A) in the county (at suburban Pagedale).



Since the state has taken over roads in the city are they liable for MLK too?



Anyway, MLK (formerly Easton), although not always a good-looking stretch of the city, used to look a whole lot better when I was growing up. Depopulation has left most the strip decayed and abandoned, unfortunately. The part in the Wellston Loop used to especially bustle.



I hope professionals do start to return in the areas surrounding MLK and with a renewed interest in The Ville, and I think they will with the right amenities and security. The refurbishable housing stock begs for new blood.



Furthermore, renovation of existing buildings would be the choice I'd make as a developer, but sometimes acquiring land and/or buildings is not that easy. If it were so easy Joe Edwards would have had the loop completed eons ago.



Also, we do not know exactly where the Roberts brothers plan to build their new strip center. We don't know exactly what are their plans. I suppose Roberts Village has been such a success, that they want to duplicate it. There are lots of vacant parcels of land on MLK where a decent sized strip could underway today.



Nevertheless, I hope their development doesn't entail tearing down salvageable buildings. MLK has some nice buildings.



Also, strip centers have been built and remodeled all over the city within the last five years and with one exception, St. Louis Marketplace, they all have been successful and have help retailers return to the city and new ones come.

I would like to see what is up there preserved, and new development follow an urban friendly infill plan, a lot like the new infill on Delmar. A real nice building is about done between Union and Skinker that should be a textbook pattern on what to do in recovering neighborhoods.



I know one of the problems is that when a neighborhood is underserved by retail, it tends to overlook good design in lieu of fostering economic development and needed retail. This was the case I believe in Southtown (the old Famous site) While I am glad the neighborhood defeated a nasty K-Mart, and increased retail options, I cringe at the setbacks and parking configuration (While knowing that it could have been worse)



I would like to see MLK developed more like Delmar than the Sothtown model, it would be in keeping with the historical context of the street and, in my opinion, foster better economic development, hence increasing the vitality of the neighborhood, while continuing to serve residents needs.

well, maybe i was a bit harsh. But truth is most all the projects the Roberts brothers have built from scratch (and not renovated) show a complete ignorance about making good urban environments. I know they want what's best for North St. Louis (but they only consider the economic side and not the physical ((which in many ways is as important as the purely economic side))). Obviously they have done many positive things, but it's always a bit mixed. Sure they are going to help renovate many of the buildings around the Old Post Office, but they were also complicit if not directly involved with the destruction of the Century Building by supporting the forces that carried out the deed.



They were briefly yet significantly mentioned in the RFT's Rolling Stanley (Director of Urban Planning and Design for the city) article:



"But Stanley is determined to change the mindset [where developers only see planners as people who restrict their development options]. Later, during a discussion in his office, he cites as an example a current project that developers Steve and Mike Roberts are creating surrounding the old Enright School on Union Boulevard. The Roberts brothers are investing heavily in north St. Louis, and Stanley has been working diligently to guide the project. It proposes twenty new homes to complement the Enright School, which the brothers are transforming into condominiums. Stanley says the initial plans were for a row of single-family homes, but they were turned in on themselves to create a kind of gated community. Stanley showed the Robertses a way to build the homes to better serve the residents: "If you put the houses facing the school, you have this wonderful muse, with little iron gates that open up, with spectacular oak trees."



Too many developers continue the "bring suburbia to the city" mentality and everything will be fine. The fact that they were mentioned planning a strip mall on MLK made me cringe (but i feel this is the city's fault more than anything). If the city came up with a redevelopment plan that approached the problem in comprehensive manner, and set up guide lines for developers the Roberts would more likely than not go along with things.

Beer City, I agree with your opinions 100%.



ComandanteCero, The Roberts' were not directly responsible for anything with the Century - not even complicit. That's harsh. When asked their opinion, they simply vocalized. They had no role in the demolition of the Century no more than you or I. It wasn't their property or project.



You guys really do need to get over the Century. Seriously.....it's history. And maybe that's harsh too, but it's over. Let the healing begin now.



I think you all can be too harsh on developers. At times, some developers do need guidance, which is why cities have codes and consultants. Sometimes things don't always work out as we desire, but it is good that Rollin Stanley was hired by the city. He aids in that effort. He is apparently doing his job.



Another thing......Although I personally disagree with such a design, St. Louis is a city full of gated and private streets, so it makes sense that the Robert Brothers would try to gate or privatize such a development.



I could see if the Robert Brothers did not accept Stanley's suggestion then you'd be on to something, but they changed their design, which says a lot. They are apparently open - unlike people involved with the Century. My personal belief is that most developers do not seek to develop in the city with the express purpose of butchering the city.



Surely some are looking out for their bottom line, but I think most developers develop because it's obviously fun, and they have an interest or love for the city just as much as any of you. They could easily take their development dollars elsewhere.



I think criticism is reasonable to extent, but sometimes it seems too extreme and prolonged.

Arch City wrote:So much more money needs to be poured into this strip it isn't funny. $4-million was put on Delmar between Skinker and DeBaliviere, which is tiny compared to the entire MLK strip, but I guess it's a start. By the way, is this a city arterial road or state road? It's D downtown, then D splits into Page Ave. at Grand Blvd. Then MLK becomes St. Charles Rock Rd. (or 180 and A) in the county (at suburban Pagedale).



Since the state has taken over roads in the city are they liable for MLK too?

From an old press release it appears the State will maintain part of MLK



Rt. D (5.71 miles) Page Ave. from St. Louis City Limits to Dr. Martin Luther King Dr. Dr. Martin Luther King Dr. from Page Avenue to Tucker



http://stlcin.missouri.org/release/getp ... m?Auto=537



I guess the City will pay for the resurfacing on the little bit from Jefferson to Page Ave. Hopefully the small amount the City pays in making the road look nicer goes a long way to attracting more investment to that area.

Arch I agree with you for the most part, my criticism isn't necessarily at the Roberts or developers per se but at their ignorance of good urban planning and design, something particularly offensive considering the crucial role they play in that respect.



Like I said before, if the city guided them more i'm sure they would follow more urban guidelines since they have their heart in the right place. The Roberts are a good example of developers with the best of intentions who need that kind of guidance because left to their own devices they'll keep churning out stripmalls and compromised urban redevelopments.



(as to their complicitness with the destruction of the Century building, i'll stand by what i said, but we can leave that for another discussion).



Speaking of good redevelopment, i noticed that they actually mentioned MLK in the Rollin Stanley article in one of the picture captions. It said



"Stanley wants to reinvent an underused business strip along Martin Luther King Boulevard (top). He believes new buildings, such as the one above, will help revitalize the district. " they have a very small picture of the building:



http://riverfronttimes.com/issues/2004- ... ure_5.html

^Is that all? Because the Roberts Brothers supposedly have influence they should have said something? Who says they even cared that much to begin with? And if they had said something do you honestly believe it would have changed the fate of that building? I hate to sound abrupt, but please!



The city belongs to the people, not the developers, not the mayor, not special interests. The people. Over two or three years how many citizens protested the demolition of the Century out of 350,000? 100-200? You all focused on the wrong people to save the Century. If you are going to be mad at someone be mad at them ? all 349,800 of them. The developers and business people simply did what developers and business people do - for good or bad.



Furthermore, being a developer doesn't mean being apt in urban planning. Unfortunately, all developers are not as sharp as Richard Baron and that is why cities set up codes and planning consultants (ie. Rollin Stanley) exist.



Lafayette Square, for example, has a shitload of codes and standards for building in that neighborhood. They don't want developers coming over there and *uckin' up things. Codes and standards = regulation. People demand codes and standards.



Surely Stanley can't guide every developer, it would be impossible, but urban zealots with little to NObody's credentials shouldn't necessarily be looked upon as experts either.



Urban planning..blah, blah, blah. (And this is coming from a guy who almost went for a Masters in City Planning)



I swear every well-intentioned (or obsessed) urban disciple has his or her theory based on some book he or she has read by one of many urban activists authors out there. Some theories are better than others, but truth is there is no magic bullet that makes a city work. If it were the case our urban centers in America would be in tiptop condition all across the country and many regions wouldn't be as sprawled as they are. There are some simple things (common sense things) that my 2-year old nephew could figure out to make a city vibrant, but making a city vibrant is not all about setbacks, urban-styled homes and commercial buildings, Loop-like shopping and dining, or even saving historic architecture.



It's deeper and more multi-faceted than that. Sophisticated human relations (I am a Sociologist by profession) are what matter in the building of a city more than anything in the long run. If certain issues aren't addressed developers could build all of the urban-styled strip centers, homes, and developments in the world, but if socio-economic circumstances, redlining, discrimination, and racism doesn't change - new buildings could potentially fall into disrepair again.



There's a reason why MLK progressed to the way it looks now, and it has nothing to do with a Robert Brothers project or some one-dimensional belief. You guys are entitled to your opinion, but I think your accusation of the Robert Brothers is unfair and selfish.



You guys want to find blame with anyone because the precious Century is being torn down, but you all should consider another way to vent your anger versus accusing people who had nothing to do with the ultimate decision - especially when you have no proof.

I think that the Century's sacrifice would not be so bitter to urban purists if the ingoing development at least would, in some way, provide a sensible replacement to the historic building. However, the OPO District will help save this central corridor of downtown only at the expense of other parts of downtown. There is not one tenant, save for that Pasta House Express, that is not already located downtown. If the OPO District had, say, a large music store or book store going in, I'd say, first, do we really have to knock down the Century? It can't be put to any use? After they still decided to go ahead with it, I'd say, well, at least downtown's core is getting some good retail (mixed with office space, of course) and so we could let go. Obviously, that's not the case. So the Century's loss does seem, to me, in vain.



Personally, though, I think the Century should not have gone down, but it's over. I do think it's time to move on. There are plenty of historic buildings downtown. Rest assured that the Wainright is safe from the wrecking ball.



As for the strip mall argument, I think any investment in North St. Louis could lead to future investments and show an investor confidence in the area and its assets. I highly doubt a North St. Louisan will say..."I'm not going to that MLK Plaza! It looks so suburban! Yuck!" and then drive/walk away. It might not fit with the architecture or neighborhood's historic character, but these are stores that North St. Louisans need/want. Why should we chase away developers who want to revitalize the North Side? I know that some of you have labeled these developments as "transitory" and bound to fail, but what else can you do? As I said above, I think the appreciation for the urban character of the neighborhood is more of a purist's concern than an actual resident. If MLK Plaza were right on the street with multi-level retail and urban design, would it really be more successful?

Great comments Matt Drops The H.



You are right. I think it would have been nice if the garage was built with a residential or office component, but it didn't happen, so I refuse to stew over it. I do believe that developers will be more progressive and heedful with their projects downtown because of all the hell that was raised with regards to the Century.



I also think the OPO development is still a work in progress in terms of a complete list of tenants. I don't believe the tenants list is final. It may even turn out that no other retailers will come - we'll have to see.



With the Paul Brown (200+ units) about to open nearby, there will be more of a retail need downtown and the retail spaces at the OPO could be very enticing. I also believe that although Webster University is a current tenant of downtown, it will become a bigger tenant, which means more people, which means a need to create more resources.



I'm optimistic as downtown moves forward even with a few missteps along the way.



I think your comment about north St. Louis retail is dead on. It applies to people in general. That's not to say that people shouldn't pay attention to their environment or let developers run amuck, but I don't think too many people pay that much attention except "purists".



If a person needs to an item from store whether it's hamburger meat or a fancy gold/diamond necklace most are not going to care whether they get from a strip center, a mall, or an urban pedestrian block.

Exactly. I mean, it'd be nice if they could do something more urban, but I just think people in this City have vilified urbanity and thus suburbanism, even if just in physical appearance, is seen as an aesthetic cure to the desolation of urban St. Louis City.



I don't agree with that assessment, but if a developer wants to put money in an ailing portion of the City, why should we refuse? Let's let the area grow and become properous again. Then we can start being picky.



Also, I use the term urban "purists" to refer to someone who despises every facet of suburbanism and is therefore against any development which does not fit his or her definition of urbanity. I don't know if it's a real term used by others or not.

Thanks Arch and Matt, you have already expressed everything I wanted to write, probably better in the case of Arch's first post.

Rollin Stanley RFT Article:

"Rollin was very much looking towards the public interest," recalls Lawrence Zucker, vice president of corporate development at Osmington Inc., a Toronto-based real estate investment company. "Rollin, from his experience, can convince you that it makes sense to put a little bit more money into something that you might not see the reward or return on right away."



It hasn't been that way in St. Louis. Developers have been given carte blanche when they bring proposals to city hall. St. Louis politicians have long portrayed any new construction, be it a strip mall, a fast-food restaurant or high-rise public housing, as a sign of progress and success. Stanley's goal is to push architects and developers to design better buildings in logical locations. But that's like turning an ocean liner in a pond.

The following wandering soapbox speech isn't directed to anyone in particular, just thoughts in general. Great discussion!



The Century building wasn't just about the destruction of a building. The anger and pathos it arouses in some is not just the fact that a serviceable building was torn down for a parking garage instead of being renovated and reused. It is about a particular kind of attitude and way of thinking that pervades the St. Louis political and development community and which has lead to the decimation of much of the city's cultural and historical memory. It speaks to larger problems of closed room deals, and power broker machinations that overrun more creative and organic solutions to the city's problems. Thankfully things seem to be changing, and changing for the better. However, much of that change is still a blip compared to vast majority of development in the region, and is hardly the norm. To believe because a niche market is being served downtown with lofts galore that there has been a fundamental shift in how the political/business model approaches the city and its communities or neighborhoods is wrong. It's about scale, it's about power, and it's about how the city's development strategy symbolizes it's strategy as a whole with regards to serving its communities in a way that adds long term value and life to a neighborhood.



A stripmall is just that, a barebones money making machine that does little to encourage social interaction, well being, or community in a neighborhood. It does little to create a sense of "place" and identity, a focal point around which a neighborhood can organize. Now don't get me wrong, economic development is great, and no well landscaped park is going to bring back a community. However it's about the entire package, the economic development WITH the social support WITH the civic pride WITH the urban layout that encourages all that is good and desirable in communities of people.



I hope the city takes Rollin Stanley's lead and tries to come up with an encompassing strategy for MLK that addresses these needs, because when they do i'm sure the Roberts Brothers will be able to do what they do best, and at the same time be great allies in bringing back the street and the surrounding neighborhood (and make some money to boot).

^Wow, I couldn't agree more. What happened to smart planning? I can understand keeping costs down, but there is nothing more expensive about building a commercial strip with parking BEHIND the buildings. A little can go a long way with regards to aesthetics.

JivecitySTL wrote:^Wow, I couldn't agree more. What happened to smart planning? I can understand keeping costs down, but there is nothing more expensive about building a commercial strip with parking BEHIND the buildings. A little can go a long way with regards to aesthetics.

Underground or first-level parking helps too, so the size of the space-wasting parking lot can be reduced.

ComandanteCero wrote:Thankfully things seem to be changing, and changing for the better.

That's really it in a nutshell. It's changing. I don't see a need to exacerbate or harp on a problem that is clearly changing for better. Perhaps it isn't changing FAST ENOUGH for some, but the mentality is clearly changing. That's what needs to be celebrated, with the hope and encouragement that it continues.

ComandanteCero wrote:A stripmall is just that, a barebones money-making machine that does little to encourage social interaction, well being, or community in a neighborhood.

JivecitySTL wrote:^Wow, I couldn't agree more. What happened to smart planning? I can understand keeping costs down, but there is nothing more expensive about building a commercial strip with parking BEHIND the buildings. A little can go a long way with regards to aesthetics.

Matt Drops The H wrote:


Underground or first-level parking helps too, so the size of the space-wasting parking lot can be reduced.

I disagree to an extent. A strip center-styled development may be the only option for a particular parcel of land especially when considering the size of stores nowadays. Sometimes it won't make sense or be necessary to put a parking lot behind, on top, or under a building. To a layperson it may seem otherwise, but it simply might not be practical. Surely there are designs that could do better with encouraging social interaction ? no doubt, however, practicality should not be ruled out as an extenuating circumstance that such designs are not built.



Furthermore, I am against destroying existing salvageable urban/pedestrian blocks for new strip malls. I wouldn't advocate it, however, there are times when buildings are beyond repair. One could easily think by driving down MLK (or any other area for that matter) that many of those buildings are salvageable, and I'd like to think the vast majority is, however, you can't determine such just by looking at the exterior.



Building huggers scream, "Save, save, save", which I believe should happen if possible, but I don't pretend I have all the answers.



Also, a "barebones strip mall" brings jobs - especially when built in underserved communities. "Well being" for some people simply means having a job, which enables them to take care of their families. Laugh if you want, but social interaction can take place in store or parking lot of a strip mall. I've had decent conversations in strip malls stores.



Social interaction doesn't always have to take place a sidewalk caf?. Sometimes people sit at sidewalk caf?s and never interact with anyone except the waiter if that.

ComandanteCero wrote:To believe because a niche market is being served downtown with lofts galore that there has been a fundamental shift in how the political/business model approaches the city and its communities or neighborhoods is wrong. It's about scale, it's about power, and it's about how the city's development strategy symbolizes it's strategy as a whole with regards to serving its communities in a way that adds long term value and life to a neighborhood.

Isn't it ultimately about ones opinion though? Doesn't it literally boil down to your personal beliefs and what one or stakeholders feel is the best political/business model approach for a city or neighborhood? Question: Why is it that every mayor in the country creates his or her own political/business model when he or she gets into office --- Richard Daley (Chicago), Michael Bloomberg (NYC), or Kay Barnes (Kansas City) just to name a few? Each of these mayors has had supporters and detractors because of the way they went about handling business affairs of the city.



I submit to you there's no magic bullet to forming such relationships. There's no magic bullet to development, and with any development situation there's bound to be some disgruntled people just as there are those who will be content.



And can you prove there has not been a fundamental shift in the political/business model approaches of St. Louis? You're always questioning the fate of the Century and McRee Town, but how do you know those decisions were not made with the greatest intent "to serve communities in a way that adds long term value and life to a neighborhood" and/or the city?



It all gets back to perception and opinion.



St. Louis is seeing unprecedented new development and rehabilitation of structures unlike anything in recent memory. Great developments like Gaslight Square, Park East, Moolah Temple, Renaissance Grand, Merchandise Mart, Continental Building, The Gate District, developments in Dogtown, West End Estates, Forest Park's restoration, CORTEX, City Hospital, tons of infills throughout the city etc. etc. have been made possible because the city established a better relationship with developers and the business community. The city provided a lot of land and property to the developers in order to get projects like these done.



To say that there hasn't been a shift is wrong and unfair.

ComandanteCero wrote:However it's about the entire package, the economic development WITH the social support WITH the civic pride WITH the urban layout that encourages all that is good and desirable in communities of people.



I hope the city takes Rollin Stanley's lead and tries to come up with an encompassing strategy for MLK that addresses these needs, because when they do i'm sure the Roberts Brothers will be able to do what they do best, and at the same time be great allies in bringing back the street and the surrounding neighborhood (and make some money to boot).

Now you're talking. But a couple of things......



The Roberts Brothers have done what they do best especially at time when no one was investing in the area. They have been great allies, which is an understatement truthfully, in maintaining the area of MLK and N. Kingshighway as one of the busiest nodes in north St. Louis. If not for them that intersection of the city would have died long ago.



When Sears (which I've been around long enough to say I shopped in that former Sears) left, the Roberts Brothers turned the building into a business/retail complex which would later bustle with activity when other businesses were divesting in the area. They even put St. Louis' UPN station in the building. Without the Roberts Brothers or Koman Properties, there probably wouldn't be an interest in the MLK strip now.



Also, I don't know if an urban layout automatically "encourages all that is good and desirable" in communities of people. Is Chesterfield not "good and desirable" just because it doesn't have a total urban layout?



Perhaps not to you, but for many people it is a good and desirable place.

Today, MLK Blvd. is a saddened street with at least the Robert's experiment at seeing if the northside could support retail, and it did. This alarms convential retailing thought, and proves that the northside might be worth redeveloping, but Rome wasn't built in a day, it evolved. If Rome went from wooden huts, to brick, to stone & marble then, surely we can let intelligent people like the Roberts Brothers experiment further with adjustments to today's needs with a focus on the future. MLK will eventually achieve our vision of a lively and thriving urban street without strip centers or car oriented suburban looking development, but that is still too far off and today is a crossroads that tomorrow can fix. Once MLK fills up with development then, we can start rethinking areas that should be more urban and of higher density and appeal. That's not saying that we don't try to work toward those ideals now, but until the MLK is tested on the market and that area of the northside gains momentum we can't become overly zealous and scare away those trial and error developers (with some guidance) who are a bridge with their developments until the real vision is implemented. As mentioned Rollin Stanley has prepared drawings for Metrolink to travel MLK hopefully at street level like a streetcar, but the jury is still out on this discussion. So let's not bash it to the ground, loose hope, or craft a set agenda until the jury returns and there is something to actually work with. It may seem that the vacant buildings are what constitutes whats to work with, but I am referring to new development on the vacant land since the current old buildings are obviously not what we want to be destroyed. The new structures will be able to be destroyed and something more ideally built when that time comes is what I'm implying.

By-the-way

I have a dream,

actually a vision that MLK would be include a professionally styled European urban park with a monument or continuous statuary facade noting St. Louis's own Civil Right's history such as the long hard fight for African Americans to have a decent high school from one in North Riverfront BD to another depressed outdated one in Old North STL to it's victory of Sumner designed by the school district's favorite architect William Ittner & Milligan. If we recall the fact that Sumner once out performed every high school in STL if not in the state back in the '40s or so and has had a very distinguished life despite today's ummm underperforming status. This one major achievment wasn't the only one, but one of many that need recognizing if not memoralized in Tandy Park then on MLK or a memorial mostly to main national Civil Right's leaders with a smaller representation of STL achievments and leaders.

Just a thought....