Cities Alive: Designing for urban childhoods
https://www.arup.com/perspectives/theme ... -childhood
https://www.arup.com/perspectives/theme ... -childhood
- 1,290
I like the idea of a small fleet of drones that can fulfill those duties by streaming to a dedicated command center or something similar. Surely there's something military-grade (technologically) available; you could set the drones up for specific patrol routes, particularly over known high crime areas, and even have them automatically react (or at least notify their overseers) whenever they 'notice' a potential crime i.e. microphones pick up a potential gunshot; the drone could extrapolate a position and move closer and notify the command center of what they 'heard' so they could scrutinize video footage and dispatch first responders if necessary. Main problems would most likely be cost and getting exemptions to FAA airspace restrictions. Wouldn't be surprised to see some city try this within the next 10 or so years, though.BellaVilla wrote: ↑Jun 18, 20187.) Explore creative crime fighting techniques like the aerial surveillance in Baltimore.
- 6,118
I like most of those. But I'd be leery to charge a fee to visitors since that's one of our biggest tourism selling points. "We have great museums and we're cheap." (Free always sounds great for cheap.) If you could make sure it's just local munis that don't go in that pay, and that out of towners are still given free admission then I think I'm on board. Alternately, you could find a way to sweaten the pot. I'd be entirely down with voting a small tax increase in the ZMD if that were connected to enlarged free access for district members to the stuff that's currently not free. (Just put it in property taxes and not sales tax. Maybe even make it a tax on parking spaces and lawns.)BellaVilla wrote: ↑Jun 18, 201810.) Extend invitations to area counties and munis to join the Zoo-Museum district. Charge reasonable admission fees to those who don't. $10 for adults $5 for kids.
11.) Point and laugh at St. Charles when they build their own "safe" POS zoo in response to #11.
- 403
Nothing is going to change until St.Louis City & County leaders are serious about real change... Unity between the 2 is desperately needed however they're dragging their feet's on the most important problem with St.Louis and the region & thats not combining them together which is a no brainer... I sometimes wonder why change is so hard but when you realize when you're so set in your ways why the need to change?
St.Louis has all the intangibles to be a successful city county region however our leaders are afraid of letting go of the pass and embracing the future.. Leaders here always say they want to do this do that but they don't talk the talk and walk the walk its like its a game to them..
Perception & crime are a killer for here i get gassed telling people from out of town that its safe to walk around downtown and explore... I honestly don't know if theres a real solution to St.Louis's crime problems it's like people are looking for trouble cause they know the lenient court system will just give them a big wet kiss on the cheek and tell them to behave...
My big 3 for changing St.Louis are Race relations, Crime, and uniting county and city followed by better eco devo transforming most of the hardest economically challenged areas of the city into livable safe havens for families of all nationalities. Then transportation education jobs also making downtown the crown jewel of the region.
At the end of the day everything is easier said than done solutions and changes are hard to overcome if everyone doesn't see eye to eye..
I love St.Louis and want the best for all of us i think we're deserving of good to great...
St.Louis has all the intangibles to be a successful city county region however our leaders are afraid of letting go of the pass and embracing the future.. Leaders here always say they want to do this do that but they don't talk the talk and walk the walk its like its a game to them..
Perception & crime are a killer for here i get gassed telling people from out of town that its safe to walk around downtown and explore... I honestly don't know if theres a real solution to St.Louis's crime problems it's like people are looking for trouble cause they know the lenient court system will just give them a big wet kiss on the cheek and tell them to behave...
My big 3 for changing St.Louis are Race relations, Crime, and uniting county and city followed by better eco devo transforming most of the hardest economically challenged areas of the city into livable safe havens for families of all nationalities. Then transportation education jobs also making downtown the crown jewel of the region.
At the end of the day everything is easier said than done solutions and changes are hard to overcome if everyone doesn't see eye to eye..
I love St.Louis and want the best for all of us i think we're deserving of good to great...
1. Some sort of overarching regional government, whether that means city-county consolidation or EW-Gateway having WAY more teeth to govern.
2. Major investment in educational institutions from the universities down to pre-K.
3. Citywide form based code and better regional planning overall. An actually economic development plan that is law.
4. Relaxation of archaic laws region wide (see #1 for this to be possible).
5. Major investment in regional infrastructure (a real plan to build out the rest of Metrolink, update the highways, basic street infrastructure across the region looks like crap).
6. Beautification campaign throughout the region to transform industrial blight into creative green infrastructure (basically fast track GRG and trailnet visions).
2. Major investment in educational institutions from the universities down to pre-K.
3. Citywide form based code and better regional planning overall. An actually economic development plan that is law.
4. Relaxation of archaic laws region wide (see #1 for this to be possible).
5. Major investment in regional infrastructure (a real plan to build out the rest of Metrolink, update the highways, basic street infrastructure across the region looks like crap).
6. Beautification campaign throughout the region to transform industrial blight into creative green infrastructure (basically fast track GRG and trailnet visions).
- 3,428
I would like the city to enact instant run-off elections. Instant run-off elections are just like current elections, except voters are asked to rank all the candidates they find acceptable when there are 3 or more candidates on the ballot. Then if no candidate gets a majority of the #1 rankings, the lowest vote candidate is dropped, and their votes are re-assigned to remaining candidates based on the voter second ranking preference. This continues successively until one candidate has a majority of the votes. The end result is like a same-day run-off election without the expense of holding a second election.
Run-offs are important when there a lot of candidates on one side of an issue which splits the vote and allows a candidate with a minority position to win with a plurality. A second run-off election is often held between the top two finisher of a multi-candidate election so one candidate will get a majority of the votes. It is more fair, but that adds the expense of another election. Instant run-off voting provides the benefits of a run-off without the additional expense.
Instand run-off elections are growing in popularity across the US and the world. Australia, New Zeland, and several states and cities in the US have already adopted instant run-off or ranked voting. Missouri should be next.
Run-offs are important when there a lot of candidates on one side of an issue which splits the vote and allows a candidate with a minority position to win with a plurality. A second run-off election is often held between the top two finisher of a multi-candidate election so one candidate will get a majority of the votes. It is more fair, but that adds the expense of another election. Instant run-off voting provides the benefits of a run-off without the additional expense.
Instand run-off elections are growing in popularity across the US and the world. Australia, New Zeland, and several states and cities in the US have already adopted instant run-off or ranked voting. Missouri should be next.
- 1,044
Not sure if this is legal but would like to see individuals somehow held liable for the economic consequences of their crime. Decreased property values , lost jobs, emotional distress etc.Perhaps if our prosecuting attorney would have that tool available they could increase bonds, prison time or fines for even the most minor of offenses. I'm thinking of individuals like this past weeks CWE robber, drive by shootings and some of the car breakin rings that cause havoc in neighborhoods. Certain crimes have consequences that extend out further than the initial victims. For civil cases we do this why not criminal ones?
Of course if we could label the criminals as Republicans then our dear Prosecutor would have no issue with throwing the book at them.
Of course if we could label the criminals as Republicans then our dear Prosecutor would have no issue with throwing the book at them.
Unfortunately, our "justice" system is moving in the opposite direction. Lenient sentencing is the new norm.
- 9,541
Thats not always a bad thing. in a non-violent or victim-less crime like weed position, there shouldnt even be an arrest.
way too many people since the 90s got sent to jail for silly sh*t like that and when they got out never could get a job and re join society and just stayed in the crime cycle.
^Yep, agree with that.
It's the violent crime and robberies that I'm fed up with. Prosecutors go for an easy plea-deal, and judges let them go with a slap on the wrist.
It's the violent crime and robberies that I'm fed up with. Prosecutors go for an easy plea-deal, and judges let them go with a slap on the wrist.
- 6,118
"Willing to pay" is one thing. "Required to" is another. And I love the Botanical garden, but it doesn't see the numbers the zoo does. (I think it's a lot better mind, but . . . facts are what they are.) This should fairly be about supporting our institutions, but we can't discount their tourism draw and the prestige they then lend our region. The fact that the zoo is free is almost beyond question a big part of its draw. Because it's free people go. Because people go they spend money. There and elsewhere. Because they spend money elsewhere we have tax revenue that can support the darned thing. The math here is doubtless really dang complicated and subtle and I don't pretend to have the solution. But I do think we ought to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.BellaVilla wrote:I am an "out of towner" college student with little $$$$. Doesn't stop me from paying full freight at the botanical gardens multiple times a year.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jun 19, 2018I'd be leery to charge a fee to visitors since that's one of our biggest tourism selling points. "We have great museums and we're cheap." (Free always sounds great for cheap.) If you could make sure it's just local munis that don't go in that pay, and that out of towners are still given free admission then I think I'm on board. Alternately, you could find a way to sweaten the pot. I'd be entirely down with voting a small tax increase in the ZMD if that were connected to enlarged free access for district members to the stuff that's currently not free. (Just put it in property taxes and not sales tax. Maybe even make it a tax on parking spaces and lawns.)
People should be happy to pay that meager entrance fee especially if it meant the special exhibits became free/reduced in price.
Further, remember that admission for a single college student is much lower than a family of four. One quarter. And families tend to do things as a unit, whether everyone wants to or not. (At least that's very much the way I remember our vacations.) So adding admission can really cut into families. And adding admission only for out of towners . . . how much additional revenue is that really going to bring? And at what cost? Raise the price and fewer people come. Law of diminishing returns. Demand for recreational activities is really quite elastic and thus incredibly price sensitive. I applaud you for paying the entrance fee. And for the record, I go to the garden a whale of a lot more than the zoo, myself. But I've also been a member much of the time. So I expect I've actually paid them quite a lot more than just buying tickets over the years. (If you count my whole family I'm pretty darn sure of that.) I'm all for supporting our institutions. Heck, in a sense I am one. I work for them. Create for them, orogram for them. Often even get paid by them. (Though admittedly not much.) For my entire adult life. I even have my own little museum grade event to announce soonish, once a few details are hammered out. Rest assured everyone will be invited. Admission will be free. And I will request donations. (And . . . it will be out in west bumblecounty nowhere. You can't win them all. Nice place. City boy should not complain. County people can be real people too.)
Anyway, forgive me. I have strong opinions about this one. Maybe ill founded, but deep and old. It's certainly worth considering. I'd just be really careful. (And do a lot of research and math. Which . . . one assumes the folks running the relevant institutions already do. One hopes.)
- 3,762
the concern, i think, is maintaining that prestige in the face of a declining tax base. i would much rather our institutions charge a nominal entrance fee than watch them slowly deteriorate. maybe it's just kid-colored memories, but despite several new high-profile exhibits i feel like the zoo offers less in terms of exhibits/looks a little worse for wear than it used to. for example, "The Living World", when built, had rooms full of interactive educational and small-animal exhibits. now it has yet another cafeteria and yet another gift shop.
- 6,118
Heh! My age is showing. The new exhibit is less shiney than it was a few years ago? C'mon! The gorillas don't live in cages anymore!urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jul 18, 2018the concern, i think, is maintaining that prestige in the face of a declining tax base. i would much rather our institutions charge a nominal entrance fee than watch them slowly deteriorate. maybe it's just kid-colored memories, but despite several new high-profile exhibits i feel like the zoo offers less in terms of exhibits/looks a little worse for wear than it used to. for example, "The Living World", when built, had rooms full of interactive educational and small-animal exhibits. now it has yet another cafeteria and yet another gift shop.
(Yeah. I do actually remember that. A little. The bear pits and elephant show I remember very well. But the gorilla cages are a somewhat remote memory now. Anyway . . . )It seems like every time I go back (once every few years or so) the place is shinier and fancier than before. (And more crowded and even more kidsy.) But at base: I really don't think they're suffering. They build new stuff every year, get into new projects, remodel. Things change, to be sure. But I don't really look around and see decline. Quite the opposite. Honestly, all of our local institutions have grown enormously in the last thirty odd years. The only question is how much; how big is that new addition. (And mostly the answer is "pretty dang big.") Things look different through lenses of different lengths. I may be witnessing a little telephoto compression. (A little. But . . . I'm not THAT old!)