ttricamo wrote:However, the potential for real estate development is the main "sell" for the City to River group. Do you disagree?
Yes I do. You should visit http://www.citytoriver.org and see how much of our effort is dedicated to the development potential of a boulevard.
You didn't answer my question. Beyond Real Estate Development, would any other single factor initiate the destruction of I-70? I wager the answer is "not at all". In other words, "Economic Benefits" is the main "sell" of the City to River Proposal, not the only benefit. In all honesty, all of the other, feel-good benefits are awesome, but would convince no one to execute your plan.
Alex Ihnen wrote:I would support [I-70's] removal even if not a single additional dollar of investment were to occur.
Allow me to call you bluff on this outrageous statement. You would have none of your other benefits without real estate development.
You can simply choose not to believe what I'm saying, but that doesn't change my focus. You're right that the economic development piece is a big selling point for many and it may in fact be the piece that gets the St. Louis business community and possibly the city to back Interstate removal (of course they were told that the Interstate when built would save thousands upon thousands of jobs, etc.). It's a minor selling point for me. My focus is the pedestrian environment, quality of life and accessibility. I want the Arch grounds to be part of our city. I want it to be a pleasant walk to go from Busch Stadium to the Arch. I want it to be easier to navigate downtown streets. None of this is new, it's the same message City to River and myself have been promoting for almost two years. The recent piece regarding development opportunities is just one more component. It's been obvious that a boulevard would take up less land the current Memorial Drive and I-70 together, so people naturally asked about what would happen. Development Strategies volunteered to look at our proposal and put a number on it. And we're going to have to rebuild I-70 downtown soon anyway (it's 50yrs old) so even if there were zero other factors involved, building a boulevard would be much less expensive than rebuilding an Interstate (that's another argument for Interstate removal that has nothing to do with new economic development).
Also, let me be blunt, instead of bantering back and forth on the forum, you can always email me with ideas to make City to River better if you have real concerns (alexihnen@gmail.com). If you're only interested in tearing down other's ideas or posting with glee when you think you've detected a hint of hypocrisy, I think you're wasting your time and mine.
ttricamo wrote:You didn't answer my question. Beyond Real Estate Development, would any other single factor initiate the destruction of I-70? I wager the answer is "not at all". In other words, "Economic Benefits" is the main "sell" of the City to River Proposal, not the only benefit. In all honesty, all of the other, feel-good benefits are awesome, but would convince no one to execute your plan.
What about simply undoing the negative effect I-70 has had on downtown? St. Louis had 750,000 people in 1960. Interstate 70 then gets built and population plummets.
The preservation ordinance, passed by the Board of Aldermen and Mayor, is clear that historic buildings are not to be demolished unless under certain criteria as their reuse promotes our economic development. This proposal was pulled from the agenda not even able to be seen by the public. Obviously that was due to political connections. So in this case the law was undermined for business interest. Maybe I'm not a Republican hence my objection to that practice.
^How True! Cause we all know that St. Louis City is run and dominated by a massive Republican Machine.
C'mon Doug, don't drag parties into this — no one will win and everyone will feel ashamed.
It's a shame and corrupt that it was taken off the agenda. That's a separate issue from my point. The building torn down wasn't that historically interesting or significant. I don't say we should bulldoze willy-nilly, but allowances and exceptions should be made after thoughtful consideration and debate. Which didn't happen in this case or, ahem, the San Luis.
They might be Democrats, however that doesn't exclude neoliberal deference to market extremism which has had a negative impact upon our built environment.
It was taken off the agenda probably because the aldermen wanted to defer to the business owner ignoring preservation review. So we are supposed to simply let business owners do what they want ignoring our democratically passed laws?
