urbanSTL

I knew Ron a few years ago and he mentioned writing the book. I bought a copy before it was professionally printed and bound. I thought it was pretty well written. The majority of the book, however, did depict the Mill Creek Valley as a great, safe neighborhood filled with people who always looked out for one another. There are a lot of testamonials from former residents who talk about what a great place it was. Maybe it was a great place to live. Even if it was a complete slum, I think it was worth saving. It is such a shame to bulldoze so many homes and businesses.

Let us remember that the famed Boston neighborhood north of downtown was also considered a mass slum when Jane Jacobs wrote her book the Death and Life of Great American Cities but she did not characterize it as a slum. The neighborhood's name escapes me right now. It is that Italian one.

SMSPlanstu wrote:Let us remember that the famed Boston neighborhood north of downtown was also considered a mass slum when Jane Jacobs wrote her book the Death and Life of Great American Cities but she did not characterize it as a slum. The neighborhood's name escapes me right now. It is that Italian one.

You are speaking of The North End, their Italian neighborhood. It's a really fun place to visit, though a bit touristy in some places. But, the buildings and streetscapes there are amazing.

Soulard and Lafayette Square were probably considered "slums" by many in the 1960's-70's, but enough folks realized it wasn't too far gone to save. Was Mill Creek Valley also a slum worth saving? Seems like at least parts of it were.

We can be grateful to those who stuck it out in places like Soulard and Lafayette Square. We can also be thankful that our politicians weren't more successful getting federal money for land clearance. We all know that St. Louis lost a lot during the era of wholesale demolition, but other cities got more money and lost more of their historic character - or maybe the feds just ran out of money and/or political will to clear more "slums".

I remember both from the 60's. Lafayette Square WAS a slum (it was horrible but still the architecture was so strong it could not be ignored) and was a breath away from being bulldozed.

Soulard, more of a working lower class neighborhood.

In those days, these areas were not appreciated for their architecture by civic leaders and the general public who considered them antiquated, passe and just plain undesireable. No one that could afford "better" wanted to live there. That's why they became a lower class neighborhood and a slum. Thank goodness true urbanites and early urban pioneers saw their worth.

In those days, these areas were not appreciated for their architecture by civic leaders and the general public who considered them antiquated, passe and just plain undesireable.

what do you mean IN THOSE DAYS.. Sounds just like today if you ask me.. hello, North Side and Paul McKee? North St. Louis has JUST as much potential. I encourage anyone who reads this to drive around St. Louis Avenue, Hyde Park and farther north to the water tower area. This is St. Louis' next Lafayette Park/Soulard. I pray to God that it doesn't turn into Wentzville. Honestly, it looks better to me in the state that it's in as compared to wentzville.

Marmar wrote:Thank goodness true urbanites and early urban pioneers saw their worth.

I don't think that this has ever been the problem. There have been and are many, many people who would like to preserve areas like Old North, Lafayette Square, etc. What has been missing in the past is a critical mass of people with political and market power to act. "The market" doesn't determine everything, but it certainly can insure that some things never get done. At this point, I believe that if the power brokers in the city were to focus on some of these neighborhoods they could make an astounding comeback. However, there are quite a number of social issues involved that don't necessarily respond to the desires of ubanists, preservationist or even developers and government.

is that the race thing you're referring to?

^ it's an economic thing I'm refering to.

^ My only point is that there have always been people who have wanted to preserve historic buildings and neighborhoods, but that without the so-called "power brokers" very little happens. These same people have enabled or purposely brought about the issues you mention. Unfortunately little can be accomplished without political power and/or money.

Hmmm....for decades LS and Soulard were not "desireable" neighborhoods. Where were preservationists then? Where were they when the riverfront was leveled? Landmarks St. Louis wasn't formed until 1959. And who were the power brokers when the first rehabbers came in? The power brokers came later.

More and more people are appreciating architecture and architectural preservation, there absolutely can be no denying that. Sure, there have always been people who saw worth in saving structures, but where is all the addaptive reuse and rehab prior to the 1970's? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

^

It seems that people appreciate structures that are 80+ years old, but things in that 30-60 year range they don't. I don't know if this is specific to St. Louis or not; but considering that much of our big wave of development took place 1880-1910, in a way it makes sense that it took another generation or two to appreciate our historic buildings.



Thankfully, as others have said, we didn't tear more down 1940-1980 than we did. We still have a lot of great properties, and with more people tired of living the suburban sprawl lifestyle there are plenty of places waiting to be rehabbed. My concern now, especially for North St. Louis, is how much longer can those buildings wait before the elements reclaim them? Unreinforced brick buildings need structural repair after such a long time.

Marmar wrote:Hmmm....for decades LS and Soulard were not "desireable" neighborhoods. Where were preservationists then? Where were they when the riverfront was leveled? Landmarks St. Louis wasn't formed until 1959. And who were the power brokers when the first rehabbers came in? The power brokers came later.

More and more people are appreciating architecture and architectural preservation, there absolutely can be no denying that. Sure, there have always been people who saw worth in saving structures, but where is all the addaptive reuse and rehab prior to the 1970's? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I'm just saying that those interested in preservation, when working against political power and money, have little chance to succeed. For example, those who loved Soulard in the 1970's were standing more or less alone. I think you're seeing a short view of history when you ask about reuse and rehab prior to the 1970s. Most buildings downtown have gone through a number of reuses. Lemp brewery has remained basically intact since prohibition and has seen light manufacturing, warehouses, offices and salvage shops. The 1970s was also not the first decade that saw home renovations in the city. Century old homes have been renovated before.

More and more people are appreciating architecture and architectural preservation, there absolutely can be no denying that.

I will take exception to this - there are stories going back to 18th Century Boston about preservationists attempting to save the original garden homes of the city. Except for about three structures, they failed. This has been replayed over and over and over throughout cities around the world.

^Yup, I've heard that too. Seems to be a lot of truth to it.



I go crazy when I hear people on this forum wanting to tear down our mid-century buildings. I'm not surprised when it's the average Joe on the street, but folks around here are supposed to appreciate our architectural heritage.

Framer wrote:^Yup, I've heard that too. Seems to be a lot of truth to it.



I go crazy when I hear people on this forum wanting to tear down our mid-century buildings. I'm not surprised when it's the average Joe on the street, but folks around here are supposed to appreciate our architectural heritage.

Which is exactly what drives me crazy about the tear-down of some of the great, sprawling 1950s ranches in places like Olivette and Sunset Hills. Sure they aren't the Cupples' House, but they are far more unique than the McMansions that are replacing them.

I admit that I'm not a blanket preservationist. There are some buildings from that era that I like, others I don't. But that doesn't just pertain to that era, it can impact other eras as well.



Also, I always ask the question 'What will go in it's place?' when they tear something down. If it's for parking? Hell no. We've got too much as it is. But I could be willing to make concessions for smart growth.

they are far more unique than the McMansions that are replacing them.

I agree. This is sad this is happening all over the suburbs. Kirkwood, Clayton, Ladue. Are there any preservation restrictions in the county at all? Ladue's new policy seems to be emulating the McMansion style of Chesterfield. How they allowed that monstrosity to be built on Clayton Road between the Bogey and Log Cabin Club, I have no idea. I'll also take the old houes of "Old" Town Clayton over the new Sopranos/I -just-won-the-lottery houses.

Suburban Lou wrote:more pics.



part of area on lower right.













Jefferson and Pine







Jefferson and Market.







all gone..

Sorry to grab all of these photos, but I'd to learn much more about Laclede Town (seen in the last aerial photo looking to the southeast), and am astonished at the total dearth of written material on the development itself... Any suggestions?

Missouri Historical Society-Archibald is the director

Landmarks Association (organization)-Michael Allen (on this forum and Ecology of Absence)

City of St. Louis (not sure who but go for the planning office)

Yeah, I know Michael well, but I'm really surprised at lack of information available on a development that is so well known. Thanks for the suggestions.