migueltejada wrote:
Some of the best neighborhoods in the St. Louis area are gated/private - and those aren't in the outer suburbs (think the CWE and UCity private communities). Those areas have been that way for decades, if not the last 100 years.
Yes those were traditionally the home of the power elite Big Cinch in St. Louis. Those communities received massive public and private investment while other areas disparately deteriorated due to neglect. Pick your reason why which could be race, socioeconomic status, or more specifically Team Four. Rather than address the issues of poverty and jobs in the areas which needed attention, the affluent areas were and are given the most attention. The solution should be to address the problem areas rather than place street barriers and increase police patrols as border guards! What existed in the past is historical and should be preserved yet we do not need any more gated elitist communities which obstruct the street grid and destroy civic interaction.
Have these gated communities served as draws bringing residents to the City? Were people in the 70's moving into the City to buy these homes? The trend says no.
Gated communities are about creating a sense of place and pride - something severely lacking in many of the northern st. louis areas (hence the graffiti and crime). While there is a degree of keeping the 'undesirables' out in these areas - considering the police can't do it, why not let the citizens do it with their property?
Place and Pride? The architecture in North St. Louis has more place then any new construction I have seen in the entire St. Louis Region. Pride, as Michael put is well alive in North St. Louis. Zoning, by the way, is governmental action not "market forces." Zoning people out of the area when developers could be buillding higher density low income mixed use is basically increased segregation through regulation thus anti-market. Oh and the SLPD can address the problem but its a policy failure due to a lack of local control and political will.
Single family zoning does not exclude poorer individuals. There can be low-income single family housing. Just because there isn't much of it doesn't mean it can't exist. And aside from that point, St. Louis has some of the lowest valued housing stock in the nation. If anything, the value of housing should INCREASE in the distressed areas, because this would provide those who live there an additional source of income - which would help life them out of poverty.
If the housing stock is so cheap then why do the police need to live in the County? Tell me that. And again tell me who in the Ville can afford a 200k+ home?
Some people can't afford to live in certain places. That's life. Sure, there should be affordable housing provided in all areas, but crying that a college student can't live in ladue is just asinine.
Its not life its called market obstructing regulation! The reason I can't live in Ladue is because the City Council formulated anti-density zoning codes which prohibit developers from building and making profit. Thus "life" is being manipulated, along with the market, against me and my oppertunity to climb the socioeconomic ladder is stymied. 91,000 residents of this Region do not have a car or adequate access to mass transit. Jobs are further moving West. If the low income cannot live where the jobs are then that is blatant segregation. Zoning this development single family is exactly the same.
Furthermore, if you're such a fan of density, then you have to be less of a fan of affordable housing. Why? Because developers won't build dense if they can't make a profit. These buildings are far riskier and expensive to produce than a few hundred suburban houses in Ellisville.
They wouldn't be risky when incorporated with mixed use as in not concentrated low income. The dilution rate of 8-1 spelled out by DPZ in Suburban Nation has been show to work around the Country. Moreover using tax incentives to build a required amount of low income can also sweeten the deal.
Exclusionary zoning, which is what this is, correlates with segregation and is one of the problems we have in St. Louis especially when spatial mismatch is a factor.
We cannot and shouldn't do suburbia in our City. We need to focus our efforts on saving our existing historical buildings and building new Urban styles which will serve as a magnet for publicity and residents regionally and internationally. Replicating Ladue or Chesterfield is not the solution. They already have their suburban built environment.
Please read the
Peirce Report and go pick up some issues of the Journal of Urban Affairs.
Doug - this and other comments lead me to believe that you haven't taken a tour of the Ville. I drove the neighborhood three weeks ago and checked out everything within the stated boundaries of this development.
What I can see is a lot of vacant lots and derelict properties, many of which are the result of the LRA or speculatory landlords. This lowers density obviously and one cannot compare the density to other more stable City neighborhoods. Simply because massive failure has occured in the past does not mean that we should settle for single family suburban homes. The St. Louis Renaissance should not be St. Louis' Suburbanization.
We have the opportunity to redress the problems of the past yet we are rowing along with the status quo of suburbanization and acting like its the goose that laid the golden egg. It has not worked in the past, why will it work now?
