Whoops, yeah - it seemed like 4 terms, but as Joe said..."not dead yet".publiceye wrote:I seem to recall a certain 4-term Mayor of St. Louis
Mayor from 1981 to 1993. Three terms.
I'm not sure you can say Schoemehl "was roundly punished" since he didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the outstate vote anyway. In any case, Vince made that statement on a radio show with a high proportion of black listeners - clearly pandering to those within that audience with racist tendencies.southsidepride wrote:well in the first instance Mayor Schoehmehl was roundly punished by Democratic primary voters for that comment. When Matt Blunt made the comment that you only find Democrats in "places where no one wants to live anymore" what kind of rebuke did he get from Republicans? I don't recall any.
I'm certainly not going to defend Blunt's fatuous remark, but it hardly rises to the level of Vince's on the offense-o-meter. Can you imagine the outrage if a Republican used a similarly-disparaging, racially-based term to refer to a large segment of the urban population, or to refer to an opponent from that population?
innov8ion wrote: Are you saying the interests of preservationists usurp what a given community may want? Somehow, I think the community and its representatives should have a greater say in their destiny although preservationist factors should be taken into account as well.
These are city wide preservation ordinances which apply to all areas under review. All communities, which come under review, are in the same boat. They can opt out as McMillan did in the 19th, but we all see the results of that choice.
I'm saying historic rehab tax credits benefit all people regardless of skin color.
Preservation, when compared to demolition for vacant lots, provides greater economic choice for the community. A vacant lot isn't providing housing, a store, a community center, or anything else. It is the lowest use possible, below a scrap yard, and only generates trash.
Finally, ironically, certain leaders who espouse black nationalism, or the idea that preservation is some white elitism, must acknowledge that suburban design/planning is a wholly white creation. They must also somehow reconcile their ideology with their suburban fetish. Historically suburban development came at the expense of African American communities. Suburbanization was and is a racist endeavor. Therefore it's quite ironic to see some African American officials or politicos advocating for suburban design within cities and especially African American neighborhoods. One would think that if they viewed preservation as white elitism then they would especially dislike everything suburban, as it is beyond elitism but outright racism.
It is contradictory to advocate for black nationalism, as in black owned businesses servicing the black community, and also wholly advocate the demolition of viable commercial or residential buildings. Preservation, through historic tax credits, provides black nationalists the means to promote black owned business. If strong autonomous black communities are the goal, then vacant lots and suburban design are inherently a step in the wrong direction.
Freeman Bosley Sr., of all people, admitted at a Blairmont meeting, I believe at Lexington School, that these newer homes, some of which bear his name, are cheaply built and will be in need of repairs in 15 years. He said people should keep their historic homes. I doubt his sincerity and I believe that he is simply trying to co-opt the language of preservationists in order to be against Paul McKee, however he has a very valid point. Many in the crowd clapped when he said this.
Leadership in other cities realize that suburban design is obsolete. It is a horrible mistake. In St. Louis we can have new urban infill while preserving historic neighborhoods. What we must not have is suburban design characteristics.
We have the chance to attract back African Americans and Whites by offering unique historic rehabs and innovative infill. St. Louis should not squander this window of opportunity.
Doug you are completely right! I don't know what the fetish is in North St. Louis with suburban style housing. I think there should be ordinances put in place to ban suburban styled development and the unnecessary destruction. Our historic architecture is what makes the city unique.
It is TRULY a travesty to see the suburban style crap infill housing that is relatively close to the north side Falstaff Brewery, especially when considering the amazing architecture of the housing immediately surrounding the brewery. I believe the S*** infill is to the north and east a bit, although I'm not sure.
- 2,093
the problem is there's a belief that on the Southside, downtown and Central Corridor-- historic neighborhoods should be preserved, but that the North side just needs to get whatever development it can. If it means tearing down the few remaining beautiful brick buildings on a blighted block so be it.