urbanSTL

I hope this is moved to Scott. I'd rather see that base stay open for years to come. That's more important to the region than having these workers in the city and I don't want to turn north city into a new age suburban oriented wasteland. At least the "wasteland" that exists now could theoretically be rebuilt block by block.

Jcity, the problem I have with your thought is that this doesn't move to Scott if it goes across the river. The proposed location is a greenfield next to a new I-64 interchange that happens to be close to Scott AFB. Nor have I heard a specific reason why in any shape or form this would help keep Scott AFB open. Two separate agencies performing two separate functions with two completely different infrastructure and security needs. The best reason why Scott AFB is still open is because congress refuses to give DOD authority for another round of base closures. The DOD is trying to close places because it rather spend money on personal and equipment rather then real estate.
.
What the move will guarantee is a hit in high quality, high number, revenue generating jobs to the city that has bled jobs from its central core for the last couple of decades while encouraging more sprawl. Do I have a better solution, no. Will proposing a new location help the city at this point, no. But the hand has been dealt and somehow the city needs a way to make this work at this site.

Eminent domain OK'd for North St. Louis site. Alderman French calls it "immoral". Hubbard says many residents say it's a blessing.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1423854917

"Although the NGA is no longer considering the site of the former Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex for its new headquarters, the agency will still conduct an environment study there, possibly allowing for its future development."

Interesting....

^ my understanding is they are building a facility that can be expanded to handle, but really can't confirm, an employee head count that is going to be more like 5,000. At the same time $1.6 billion seems like a huge dollar amount to put behind a development and can't wrapped my head around that number. I understand that their is a lot more behind this facility then your run of the mill spec office square footage for Centene or say RGA to give some local examples or even Monsanto's R&D facilities in Chesterfield. But still, $1.60 billion is a big number. Unfortunately the Feds are going to and will spend $1.6 billion on this facility and not a new North South metrolink. That is the reality facing the city in 2016
.
At end of day I think this all comes down to politics in DC. I was pretty blunt on my reply to JCity but believe politicians on one side of the river already have a lot of people convinced that this is going to be at Scott AFB, and therefore saving the base from closure in the foreseeable future, when I understand it is not. At the same time, I'm pretty adamant that you are not going to bring people to your urban core if jobs continue to bleed to the periphery. A lot of disappointment on this thread directed at the City and GSA when GSA decided that VA office jobs should move out of downtown when across the state KC did a great job of consolidating federal jobs into to its urban core. This is at a scale of at least 5 times more jobs.

If these people are forced out of their homes and businesses, and the likely scenario occurs that the NGA doesn't relocate there, the city should rebuild their homes and businesses at no cost to them.

The city needs to realize that bad planning has consequences. French is right, this is absolutely immoral.

Aesir wrote:If these people are forced out of their homes and businesses, and the likely scenario occurs that the NGA doesn't relocate there, the city should rebuild their homes and businesses at no cost to them.

The city needs to realize that bad planning has consequences. French is right, this is absolutely immoral.

And if they DO locate there it's all good.

yes

Plato or Aristotle must have had an expression to describe a debate where on the one hand there is a serious opportunity and on the other there is blind faith. We have a lot of those in St. Louis and they often come down to these development questions. The Northside GSA proposal is a classic.

A lot of critics oppose this effort based on either the use of eminent domain, McKee's ham-handed management of Northside, or the anti-urban site plan in the works. Those are all fair criticisms. Where the blind faith comes in is the wish for a dense, rebuilt, classic urban city area. We all would love to see that, but in places like JVL, it's not happening. Or it's taking decades of microscopic change, while the surrounding decay advances even faster.

One commenter above is ready to write off St. Louis over the QT at Jefferson and Chouteau, the stadium deal, and now this proposal. Is this person forgetting the love for Cherokee Street, Forest Park, the CWE, Old North, O'Fallon, and the roughly 2/3 of St. Louis that is largely intact, historic, urban fabric?

We live in a complex, challenged, often broken city. With it comes many difficult choices. And priorities. Priorities for jobs. Priorities for national relevance, priorities for public safety, and so on. Against these challenges, a decision about a QuikTrip, a new stadium on a blighted riverfront, or keeping 3,000 +/- jobs take on differing levels of importance.

Not everything is about historic preservation, the built environment, or being a cool place; and, for those most interested in those things, we have more than most places no matter what happens with the stadium, Northside Regeneration, or a new QT. I don't envy the Board of Aldermen or the Mayor's office. They actually have to make decisions on these matters and not just armchair quarterback them.

With the stadium, GSA and McKee plans is there a single place in America with more billions of dollars on the table than the North Side?

Or maybe we like it just the way it is.

I don't envy the Board of Aldermen or the Mayor's office. They actually have to make decisions on these issues and not just armchair quarterback about them.

And they constantly get it wrong.

Not everything is about historic preservation, the built environment, or being a cool place;

When was the last time a conversation was had about a project that was actually going to be about any of the things you listed above? Not very often.

One commenter above is ready to write off St. Louis over the QT at Jefferson and Chouteau, the stadium deal, and now this proposal. Is this person forgetting the love for Cherokee Street, Forest Park, the CWE, Old North, O'Fallon, and the roughly 2/3 of St. Louis that is largely intact, historic, urban fabric?

St. Louis leaders are slowly tearing down the City. Remember the Pevely building, a building listed on the national register? If being a protected building doesn't stop the demolition ball, do you honestly think the places you named above are safe?

I'm not anti-development or really sure eminent domain is wrong in this instance, but when you add up all of the blunders city leaders have made and the fact that there are a bunch of precedents out there for low density development in this city, and not a whole heck of a lot in the good urban design camp.

It's not about one project, it's about all the cumulative bad decisions our "leadership" has made that makes me lose hope in the CIty. St. Louis is a planning disaster.

I totally agree, St. Louis is desperate to try anything to reverse its decline and that desperation leads to the city constantly shooting itself in the foot.

Sometimes I think it's not the leadership in St. Louis that's the problem but the citizens. They clearly don't want an urban environment, if they did why would they stand for poor development and keep voting in the same stupid alderman.

Northside Neighbor- never doubt my loyalty to this city. I built an entire business around my undying passion. Of course these issues are complex. What is so troubling is that the city is so quick to make the same mistakes that it has repeatedly in the past, yet hoping for different results. Our elected leaders constantly cave in to speculative scenarios at the expense of what is arguably our single greatest asset (our built environment), and it looks desperate. No one wants to date someone who is desperate, and let's face it, our growth rate certainly reflects that.

To me there is not as stark a contrast as the way others see it. I see a lot of shades of gray versus absolutes. A good example is the long time historic code in the Ville. It's on paper as a planning tool. But has it helped support growth or made it harder for low income residents?

I'd love to talk about the the people. These people will be getting robbed. Their homes are already worth little, a lot can't just sell and move somewhere else. So what's in the future for those people? Public housing? Run by the city that kicked them out of their home? "Market value" that is paid for eminent domain will not even begin to cover what these people will lose.

The people on the north Riverfront that will lose their businesses because Peacock, Blitz, and Nixon view 50-100 more parking spots for people from Chesterfield and St. Peters as more valuable than what they have built up?

Looking back, how about the people in the Mill Creek Valley, and in the places where 55 and 44 slice and dice their way through our once intact south side? Those people (mostly black) who had their homes and businesses uprooted and destroyed so people could shave 5 minuites off their commute?

These people get the short end of the stick. It's always been about these people, it's always been wrong.

I'd also like to point out, who here seriously thinks the NGA will relocate to North City over Scott? Everyone knows this will go to Scott. Yet the City pushes on ahead to deprive these people of their homes.

This land will end up in Paul McKee's hands. I guess a couple glossy drawings of a coffee shop here, a Dollar Store there, have fooled people away from how he has procured the land he already has and what he has done to the neighborhoods he is in.

Best part is, McKee won't have to take any blame for kicking people out. It will be done by the city, in a doomed from the start attempt to let a spy agency build a fortress right in the center of the city.

Doesn't get any richer than this.

I'd also like to point out, who here seriously thinks the NGA will relocate to North City over Scott? Everyone knows this will go to Scott. Yet the City pushes on ahead to deprive these people of their homes.

This land will end up in Paul McKee's hands. I guess a couple glossy drawings of a coffee shop here, a Dollar Store there, have fooled people away from how he has procured the land he already has and what he has done to the neighborhoods he is in.

Get the emotion, but the thought is sort of disconnected. We might keep NGA. The area needs to be redeveloped regardless.

Looking back, how about the people in the Mill Creek Valley, and in the places where 55 and 44 slice and dice their way through our once intact south side? Those people (mostly black) who had their homes and businesses uprooted and destroyed so people could shave 5 minuites off their commute?

These people get the short end of the stick. It's always been about these people, it's always been wrong.

This I don't get. Yes, the history is true. But it's ancient history. We need to move forward. If there was an organization like a progressive leadership roundtable, then maybe in the future there'd be a different lens through which to consider some of these issues.

The people on the north Riverfront that will lose their businesses because Peacock, Blitz, and Nixon view 50-100 more parking spots for people from Chesterfield and St. Peters as more valuable than what they have built up?

This I really don't get. It sounds sort of like the rantings of an angry anarchist. If you want to make a difference, you have to organize. I can't think of a better vehicle to get organized than a progressive leadership roundtable.

Right now, there are a few consistently progressive members of the Board of Aldermen - Cohn, Ogilvie, Ingrassia, Krewson, and maybe one or two others. But they're each pretty independent and really not part of a progressive bloc. Instead, their message often gets blurred into the background of other Democrats, the Mayor's office, etc.

A progressive leadership roundtable would serve as a unifying platform. It could bring people together to rally around progressive causes, for STL city, and even the region.

Northside Neighbor wrote:
Get the emotion, but the thought is sort of disconnected. We might keep NGA. The area needs to be redeveloped regardless.

Pretty much everyone except city-boosters knows the NGA is moving to Scott. I even have a couple of friends who work IT support at Scott, they know. Try to look at it from the POV of someone in Washington DC. New facility near adjacent military installation, allowing for "synergy" and interaction? Out in the boonies, lots of land? VS urban location, in a distressed area, higher security needs, and politically charged land grabbing?

This is going to Scott, it's always been going to Scott.

Northside Neighbor wrote:
This I don't get. Yes, the history is true. But it's ancient history. We need to move forward. If there was an organization like a progressive leadership roundtable, then maybe in the future there'd be a different lens through which to consider some of these issues.

It is not ancient history. Many people are still alive today, and have passed down very real and justified resentment about it. People complain so much about the nasty racial issues in St. Louis. Well, here is a BIG reason why it exists. People don't like getting their homes and businesses taken. Ferguson? Lots of dislocated black families from the destroyed Kinloch. Dutchtown? Lots of dislocated black families from the destroyed McRee town. Kirkwood City Hall shootings? Resentment from the black community near 44 being demolished in favor of a Wal-Mart.

These things have consequences. It's a pattern. You suggest moving forward by doing the exact same thing. Thats not moving forward at all.

Northside Neighbor wrote:
This I really don't get. It sounds sort of like the rantings of an angry anarchist.

Being angry about people's livlihoods being taken because they can't afford to fight back =/= being an angry anarchist. You're half right though, I am a libertarian. Maybe thats what it takes to be upset about poor blacks being consistently booted out of their homes by the government?

Cause it sure seems these "progressives" that you want to get on a "roundtable" don't give a sh*t.

Northside Neighbor wrote:
If you want to make a difference, you have to organize. I can't think of a better vehicle to get organized than a progressive leadership roundtable.

Right now, there are a few consistently progressive members of the Board of Aldermen - Cohn, Ogilvie, Ingrassia, Krewson, and maybe one or two others. But they're each pretty independent and really not part of a progressive bloc. Instead, their message often gets blurred into the background of other Democrats, the Mayor's office, etc.

A progressive leadership roundtable would serve as a unifying platform. It could bring people together to rally around progressive causes, for STL city, and even the region.

Ingrassia? The Alderwoman who campaigns as a progressive, then votes to clear cut and force poor people out of their homes? She's at least consistent in that regard.

Unified behind what, exactly? What "progressive causes" are we talking about here? More clear cutting? More ***** poor people? More of the same that we've had for the last 65 years?

I'll pass on this roundtable.

Here's organization. These people that live there are already bringing in the Institute for Justice. I've already reached out to the Castle Coalition to see how they would feel about getting involved, and if they have any contacts that they can give. At the very least get this thing stalled in the courts before one person's house gets knocked down.

Cookie Thornton was up to his eyeballs in debt. The Kirkwood City Hall shooting didn't have anything to do with building a Walmart at Meacham Park. It had everything to do with one man going off the deep end over a destroyed personal life. He was a contractor who had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and blamed his problems on the city of Kirkwood. Had he been raking in cash, he would have been happy and there wouldn't have been 6 people shot and killed that night.

Where you get the impression I suggest moving forward by "doing the exact same thing" I have no idea. There has never been a progressive leadership roundtable in St. Louis. The narrative you describe about McRee Town, eminent domain in a seriously blighted part of the city somehow being an agenda to screw poor people, is worn out. McRee Town was a disaster. Children were dying in the locked trunks of parked cars. To suggest there was a plan to screw them and then screw Dutchtown is revisionist history.

I can just imagine how much progress we will see in St. Louis by bringing in the Castle Coalition and the Institute for Justice. What will these organizations do to improve the lives of people living in these blighted conditions? If anything, they are more likely to advance their own political agenda than raise the quality of life for the people in these neighborhoods. But if they can do it, please explain how.

And if they have a recipe for improving conditions in deteriorated STL neighborhoods, maybe theirs is a message which could be presented to a progressive leadership roundtable for long term, sustainable change in St. Louis. Instead, most things we see happen here tend to be ad hoc, case by case, flitting from one crisis to the next. That's the convenient out the local, divided, Democratic party enjoys. There's no unified platform for change.

If the GSA builds at Scott AFB instead of the North Side they are a racist organization and they need to be investigated. This is not a joke.