What a neat city st Louis used to be!
- 2,386
Alright I am just going to come out and say I have no idea what kind of a dynamic is going on in this thread right now.
With regards to the aerials, I didn't think anything could cause me to despise SLU's grass, fountains, and sculptures more than I already did. Congrats, those have done so!
The research building in the 2007 shot is absolutely hilarious. What a joke. What is the dynamic like woking in that building? I can't even imagine. Must think you are in the middle of Kansas or something from floors 2-5.
With regards to the aerials, I didn't think anything could cause me to despise SLU's grass, fountains, and sculptures more than I already did. Congrats, those have done so!
The research building in the 2007 shot is absolutely hilarious. What a joke. What is the dynamic like woking in that building? I can't even imagine. Must think you are in the middle of Kansas or something from floors 2-5.
If I may, I would like to add a little perspective here regarding campus planning. These are the newest (and now completed!) construction projects from Xavier University. Also Jesuit if that has anything to do with urban design and planning? Not sure what religion has to do with any of this but whatever I will go with it. (My University is by no means perfect but I appreciate what they have done with our new construction.) For those that don't know, Xavier is smaller than SLU but also located in a major city (Cinci) and is building into an already established urban environment. Although I will concede, it is slightly further away from downtown than SLU, although not by much.
Initial designs for the new library/student center and Williams college of business. Please note all streets are public akin to Grand, Lindell, etc. around SLU.
![]()
Finished business school with new dorm under construction.
![]()
Like SLU, Xavier has a strange love affair with demolition, although the properties surrounding it are much, MUCH less adaptable/usable/historic than those surrounding SLU. Xavier has a long way to go in regards to creating a truly walkable, urban environment but this is just meant as an example that it really isn't very difficult to expand in a manner that maintains a sense of urbanism instead of destroying any semblance of such. There is an unfortunate amount of surface parking included in the new developments, but my point is more with the building's actual location in relation to the street. The simple change of building to the street would make future SLU developments infinitely better. Put as much grass as you want behind the building, just build the actual strucuture up to the street.
Initial designs for the new library/student center and Williams college of business. Please note all streets are public akin to Grand, Lindell, etc. around SLU.
Finished business school with new dorm under construction.
Like SLU, Xavier has a strange love affair with demolition, although the properties surrounding it are much, MUCH less adaptable/usable/historic than those surrounding SLU. Xavier has a long way to go in regards to creating a truly walkable, urban environment but this is just meant as an example that it really isn't very difficult to expand in a manner that maintains a sense of urbanism instead of destroying any semblance of such. There is an unfortunate amount of surface parking included in the new developments, but my point is more with the building's actual location in relation to the street. The simple change of building to the street would make future SLU developments infinitely better. Put as much grass as you want behind the building, just build the actual strucuture up to the street.
It seems that the move towards taxation of nonprofits rises out of sagging local economies and governments looking for additional revenue streams...and that is likely exactly where st Louis city government could find itself...not sure how that would encourage denser development though...tell more...rbeedee wrote:I think that's part of it, but that's something that's true for all non-profit hospitals/universities/colleges/churches/charities, not something that's specific to SLU.quincunx wrote:Is part of the problem here that they don't pay property taxes so there's a disincentive missing for large grassy meadows and parking lots?
Matt Yglesias had a post about this a while ago (see also this older NYT article about charitable exemptions and an Atlantic Cities article about non-profit hospitals specifically). The example Yglesais goes through is more applicable to a city with a land scarcity issue, which is a little different than our problem of sprawl/landbanking, but I think the underlying distortion is the same.
I'm sure SLU and similar organizations (WashU/BJC, SSM, etc) make PILOT payments of some sort to the city, but I doubt that the payment is linked in any way to property ownership (anyone have any info on what sort of payments these large non-profits make to the city?). I think a better system might be to have lower PILOT payments and assess a property tax to non-profits who own over x amount of "unimproved land" (parking garages, surface lots, green space) only on the unimproved land. That would spare smaller non-profits with thinner margins from the brunt of a new tax and would prompt larger non-profits to minimize parking, build garages over surface lots, and keep green space to a tasteful minimum.
That policy might not work (I'm sure there are a lot of unintended consequences I haven't thought of) or be politically feasible (I can't imagine the heavy lifting that would have be done to get something like this put in to action), but I think it's worth thinking about ways we can promote density on a policy level.
- 2,386
It would encourage development (in this hypothetical scenario) due to the fact that it would be more expensive to hold land with grass and fountains than it would be to own buildings and developed parcels of land. If you own grass and fountains, you get taxed cash money every year into perpetuity. If you expand the urban built environment by constructing a building on said land, you go back to your previous tax-exempt status, and get to keep your cash money.
An incentive to build and not just accumulate and hold. If I am understanding correctly, that is.
An incentive to build and not just accumulate and hold. If I am understanding correctly, that is.
Another example of an urban campus done RIGHT is Carnegie-Mellon in Pittsburgh (and the adjacent University of Pittsburgh, for that matter). They are situated in Oakland, a mid-city neighborhood very comparable to Midtown St. Louis. Unlike SLU, these universities embrace their urban location. They capitalize on the density of buildings, and Forbes Avenue (very similar to Grand), is buzzing with pedestrian activity. Imagine if Grand Center were filled with bookstores, ethnic restaurants, coffee shops, pharmacies and convenience stores, and bustled with hundreds of students, professors and faculty day and night. Here are some pics to give you an idea of the context:
Aerial of Oakland, Pittsburgh:
![]()
Forbes Avenue (this is what Grand Center could be and SHOULD be). It is a mixed-use district that integrates seamlessly into the university campuses adjacent to it. Father Biondi, have you ever been to Pittsburgh?
![]()
Aerial of Oakland, Pittsburgh:
Forbes Avenue (this is what Grand Center could be and SHOULD be). It is a mixed-use district that integrates seamlessly into the university campuses adjacent to it. Father Biondi, have you ever been to Pittsburgh?
I think a lot of people thought the life and street presence on S. Grand would continue up to Grand Center. Or at least it would (and still could) fill in up to Compton Hill while SLU work it's way back south toward it with.stlgasm wrote:Imagine if Grand Center were filled with bookstores, ethnic restaurants, coffee shops, pharmacies and convenience stores, and bustled with hundreds of students, professors and faculty day and night.
That's the problem a lot of people have with many of SLU's purchases and development practices. Grand should be one of our great North-South streets, connecting classic southside neighborhoods, a vibrant and diverse S. Grand, two beautiful parks, a respected university, an arts/music/culture center and a potentially exciting N. Grand.
There are holes in the streetline, yes -- some do to the railyards, some due to the highways and some due to general neglect and demolition, but people are upset that SLU -- who is in a position to lead the charge of making Grand a, well, grand street, elects to build 100 feet back and moat off its buildings by lawns, lots and fences.
- 2,386
It is just amazing that SLU cannot see that vibrant street life creates a more desirable place to live and study. You can say whatever you want about their responsibility to the surrounding community, but the most important group they must answer to is their student body, and they are failing disastrously at expanding in a manner which is best for their customers.
SLU is trying as hard as possible to build itself out of relevance. There needs to be some MAJOR change. If you are a SLU student or graduate, please do what you can to communicate this to Biondi. For the good of your school, and St. Louis.
SLU is trying as hard as possible to build itself out of relevance. There needs to be some MAJOR change. If you are a SLU student or graduate, please do what you can to communicate this to Biondi. For the good of your school, and St. Louis.
- 10K
I think that's Pitt, gasm. It's an awesome example of a true urban campus.stlgasm wrote:Another example of an urban campus done RIGHT is Carnegie-Mellon in Pittsburgh (and the adjacent University of Pittsburgh, for that matter). They are situated in Oakland, a mid-city neighborhood very comparable to Midtown St. Louis. Unlike SLU, these universities embrace their urban location. They capitalize on the density of buildings, and Forbes Avenue (very similar to Grand), is buzzing with pedestrian activity. Imagine if Grand Center were filled with bookstores, ethnic restaurants, coffee shops, pharmacies and convenience stores, and bustled with hundreds of students, professors and faculty day and night. Here are some pics to give you an idea of the context:
Aerial of Oakland, Pittsburgh:
Forbes Avenue (this is what Grand Center could be and SHOULD be). It is a mixed-use district that integrates seamlessly into the university campuses adjacent to it. Father Biondi, have you ever been to Pittsburgh?
RobbyD wrote:It seems that the move towards taxation of nonprofits rises out of sagging local economies and governments looking for additional revenue streams...and that is likely exactly where st Louis city government could find itself...not sure how that would encourage denser development though...tell more...
Basically as newstl2020 said. As it stands right now, non-profits are exempt from property taxes, so it costs them nothing to landbank--buy up land that they think they might want at some point in the distant future and hold on to it. Since buildings cost money to maintain, if they don't think they'll need the existing buildings in the immediate future, it's cheaper to demolish what's there and leave the lot as a greenfield or surface parking lot (for example, BJC's demolition of a small and architecturally insignificant but perfectly reusable building at Clayton and Newstead). Whereas a for-profit enterprise would be taxed on the land and thus has a reason to want to use it for some purpose that will generate income (residential, offices, retail, whatever) there's no similar incentive for a non-profit. Some sort of tax/fee system to collect money on unimproved land owned by non-profits would either persuade non-profits to not buy land they don't have a near-term use for (thus making it available for others who want to use it for other purposes), use land in a more urban-friendly way (less green space, less surface parking, etc), or raise money for the city (more police officers? better schools? smart parking meters?). Exempting property under a certain square footage would avoid hurting small non-profits, churches, etc. that don't have the resources of major universities or hospitals.newstl2020 wrote:It would encourage development (in this hypothetical scenario) due to the fact that it would be more expensive to hold land with grass and fountains than it would be to own buildings and developed parcels of land. If you own grass and fountains, you get taxed cash money every year into perpetuity. If you expand the urban built environment by constructing a building on said land, you go back to your previous tax-exempt status, and get to keep your cash money.
An incentive to build and not just accumulate and hold. If I am understanding correctly, that is.
Maybe such a plan would hurt expansion of these institutions in the city, or would make them move more development into the county (though I think they have many reasons to stay, including their large pre-existing campuses, and if the city and the county agreed to a similar policy that would help). Maybe there's a better way to tip to promote dense development from our large non-profits that avoids the tax scheme, like stricter development guidelines. Just something to think about.
The Oakland neighborhood in Pittsburgh is amazing...and is a model of how urban universities should interact with the urban context...my question though is how anyone realistically thinks midtown could ever approach the Oakland model...two clicks on Wikipedia shows that the Oakland neighborhood is Pennsylvanias third largest "downtown" area behind phillys center city and downtown Pittsburgh and is described as the cultural, academic and medical hub of Pittsburgh...now midtown st Louis has assets to be sure and there are many things to be learned from the Pittsburgh that should be applied to the assets that are in midtown...but can st Louis support both the academic and medical hub of the cwe and a burgeoning hub in midtown? It just seems to be a stretch to assume that a mid sized jesuit school and a (robust) collection of art institutions can manufacture a senergy of activity comparable to Oakland neighborhood in Pittsburgh...especially given the road blocks of transportation infrastructure that separate the neighborhoods and activity of south grand from SLU and large swath of nothing that looms to the north...
Midtown melted down for a number of reasons...realistic expectations of what is left behind should drive the discussion...and typically does here...but to expect that midtown should or could rival Oakland isn't reality, right? Specific lessons should be applied to specific blocks (like finding better options than sculpture parks for street corners)...but realistic options given the actual density in the neighborhood and the actual very significant transportation obstacles are places to start...
I really think that SLU has possibly made a decision to do what really everyone else has done since 1950, that is give up on the neighborhood...and to withdraw into its own space and build a buffer from the obvious decay that surrounds it...I mean in some sense I think SLU can be seen as being left behind on the titanic and is now blamed for the sinking...SLU should be encouraged to do what it can to improve its neighborhood...understanding that it has been dealt a tough hand by the surrounding community...
Midtown melted down for a number of reasons...realistic expectations of what is left behind should drive the discussion...and typically does here...but to expect that midtown should or could rival Oakland isn't reality, right? Specific lessons should be applied to specific blocks (like finding better options than sculpture parks for street corners)...but realistic options given the actual density in the neighborhood and the actual very significant transportation obstacles are places to start...
I really think that SLU has possibly made a decision to do what really everyone else has done since 1950, that is give up on the neighborhood...and to withdraw into its own space and build a buffer from the obvious decay that surrounds it...I mean in some sense I think SLU can be seen as being left behind on the titanic and is now blamed for the sinking...SLU should be encouraged to do what it can to improve its neighborhood...understanding that it has been dealt a tough hand by the surrounding community...
I understand the logic but if taxing land encouraged real development we wouldn't be in this position...this all assumes that there are other significant investment dollars being squeezed out by the non profits...that doesn't seem to be the case in midtown...I also understand the drive to save historic structures for possible future development, but that costs money and requires the will of property owners...a difficult thing to overcome sometimes...but worth the effort often...rbeedee wrote:RobbyD wrote:It seems that the move towards taxation of nonprofits rises out of sagging local economies and governments looking for additional revenue streams...and that is likely exactly where st Louis city government could find itself...not sure how that would encourage denser development though...tell more...Basically as newstl2020 said. As it stands right now, non-profits are exempt from property taxes, so it costs them nothing to landbank--buy up land that they think they might want at some point in the distant future and hold on to it. Since buildings cost money to maintain, if they don't think they'll need the existing buildings in the immediate future, it's cheaper to demolish what's there and leave the lot as a greenfield or surface parking lot (for example, BJC's demolition of a small and architecturally insignificant but perfectly reusable building at Clayton and Newstead). Whereas a for-profit enterprise would be taxed on the land and thus has a reason to want to use it for some purpose that will generate income (residential, offices, retail, whatever) there's no similar incentive for a non-profit. Some sort of tax/fee system to collect money on unimproved land owned by non-profits would either persuade non-profits to not buy land they don't have a near-term use for (thus making it available for others who want to use it for other purposes), use land in a more urban-friendly way (less green space, less surface parking, etc), or raise money for the city (more police officers? better schools? smart parking meters?). Exempting property under a certain square footage would avoid hurting small non-profits, churches, etc. that don't have the resources of major universities or hospitals.newstl2020 wrote:It would encourage development (in this hypothetical scenario) due to the fact that it would be more expensive to hold land with grass and fountains than it would be to own buildings and developed parcels of land. If you own grass and fountains, you get taxed cash money every year into perpetuity. If you expand the urban built environment by constructing a building on said land, you go back to your previous tax-exempt status, and get to keep your cash money.
An incentive to build and not just accumulate and hold. If I am understanding correctly, that is.
Maybe such a plan would hurt expansion of these institutions in the city, or would make them move more development into the county (though I think they have many reasons to stay, including their large pre-existing campuses, and if the city and the county agreed to a similar policy that would help). Maybe there's a better way to tip to promote dense development from our large non-profits that avoids the tax scheme, like stricter development guidelines. Just something to think about.
...it seems to me that tax policy has been successfully used as a carrot to encourage certain behavior...maybe give tax breaks for maintaining property...ultimately the market must demand the density for neighborhoods to succeed or fail...government can encourage certain outcomes but ultimately its real people choosing to spend real money in certain neighborhoods that is required...that takes entrepreneurs like "the mayor of the loop" meeting real demands for goods and services...right now I'm not sure midtown has either in enough quantity to create the midtown I'd like to see...and I'm convinced raising taxes on property or creating new taxes on property would not do much to generate the required synergy between entrepreneurship and real demand we need in midtown...
- 11K
I tend to agree, but the availability of basically free land and near zero taxes (with abatement) hasn't worked either. I recognize that this doesn't then mean that taxing land will work. What it would likely do is prevent as many people from acquiring land and sitting on it (see Paul McKee). St. Louis suffers from a lack of turnover on land and buildings. The cause of this is certainly up for discussion.
We cant blame SLU for being irresponsible when the city of St. Louis hasn't adopted a progressive city plan since the 1940s. Maybe if St. Louis City would get behind a real, form-based, transit oriented plan for city land use and make it LAW! Land predators like Paul McKee and SLU wouldn't be able to continue their destructive behavior.
I also find it strange that Washington University provides a far better urban experience than SLU and SLU is closer to the core of the region.
I also find it strange that Washington University provides a far better urban experience than SLU and SLU is closer to the core of the region.
- 1
"If you are a SLU student or graduate, please do what you can to communicate this to Biondi."
SLU graduate here, A&S '74. I suggest you save your time and effort. I sent him an email in November critical of his destructive policies and received a very snotty reply from Biondi. Apparently, like most of the Catholic hierarchy, peons like us should only be seen and not heard.
FYI: I lived in Laclede Town while attending SLU. To this day, I believe SLU, Harris-Stowe and the city of St. Louis could have done much more to save Laclede Town, a criticism I also voiced to Biondi.
SLU graduate here, A&S '74. I suggest you save your time and effort. I sent him an email in November critical of his destructive policies and received a very snotty reply from Biondi. Apparently, like most of the Catholic hierarchy, peons like us should only be seen and not heard.
FYI: I lived in Laclede Town while attending SLU. To this day, I believe SLU, Harris-Stowe and the city of St. Louis could have done much more to save Laclede Town, a criticism I also voiced to Biondi.
RobbyD-- While achieving the vibrancy of Oakland (Pittsburgh) is indeed a lofty expectation, I absolutely think it's possible. Up until the '50s, the corner of Grand & Olive was well-known to be the busiest intersection in the entire city. The "Times Square" of St. Louis if you will. Of course I realize that those days are long gone, but remember Washington Avenue circa 1993? Transformations are possible, and we have proof of this in our own city. Midtown has a built-in student population of 17,000. That's no small number. Add to that the theatres, museums and other cultural draws of Grand Center, and there is clearly critical mass. I believe the restoration of the Metropolitan building will be a huge catalyst for pedestrian-scaled retail on Grand. And while The Lawrence Group may be on the other side of the Pevely debate, no one can deny their amazing contributions to Midtown in recent years. Steve Smith is a really great guy and he genuinely loves the city. The Pevely building aside, I think he is fully committed to enhancing the urban fabric of Midtown.
Sorry I went off on such a tangent.
Sorry I went off on such a tangent.
- 11K
^ Not to criticize Steve Smith as a person, but he sings the song of the person paying the check. It's great that he's worked on some wonderful historic buildings, but he's also happy to offer an utterly ridiculous and totally laughable attack on a National Register building if the person signing his paycheck tells him to.
I don't mean to imply that if SLU didn't own so much real estate Grand would be a vibrant 24-7 strip, I don't think that's the case. Most likely it would be about as occupied as it is now, maybe with more vacant buildings rather than empty lots, and a few buildings occupied by small businesses. What I think is important is what kind of future we're planning for along Grand (and the city more generally). I think what we all want is dense, urban development along Grand. If the central corridor continues it's recent development pattern, I think that's a reasonable 50-year goal, but to get there everything that's built in the interim should be built as if that's what already exists. To wind up with a dense city you have to build it, one building at a time, and part of the problem is developments that demolish existing buildings for greenspace or parking.RobbyD wrote:this all assumes that there are other significant investment dollars being squeezed out by the non profits...that doesn't seem to be the case in midtown.
Right, not every parcel currently under utilized will be turned in to a great mixed-use development, but at least the land/buildings will be an option for someone else to try something, rather than stuck in limbo. I keep thinking of the Drurys trying to shoehorn their hotel into a very challenging parcel of land in FPSE. I bet they would rather have access to a lot or two of the vast parking wasteland on the BJC campus between Taylor and Newstead, but that potentially valuable real estate is locked up as no-tax parking.Alex Ihnen wrote:I tend to agree, but the availability of basically free land and near zero taxes (with abatement) hasn't worked either. I recognize that this doesn't then mean that taxing land will work. What it would likely do is prevent as many people from acquiring land and sitting on it (see Paul McKee). St. Louis suffers from a lack of turnover on land and buildings
- 11K
"To wind up with a dense city you have to build it, one building at a time, and part of the problem is developments that demolish existing buildings for greenspace or parking."
Yes. Yes! YES! This is how cities are built (and destroyed). SLU stated at the demo hearing that the building they proposed (or rather the rendering they threw together in a week) had a 50-75 year life span, underscoring exactly why it's important that whatever is built fits with a 50-year vision of what the city should be. The problem is that the city isn't providing that vision, so hacks like me and other's derisively labeled "preservationists" have to.
Yes. Yes! YES! This is how cities are built (and destroyed). SLU stated at the demo hearing that the building they proposed (or rather the rendering they threw together in a week) had a 50-75 year life span, underscoring exactly why it's important that whatever is built fits with a 50-year vision of what the city should be. The problem is that the city isn't providing that vision, so hacks like me and other's derisively labeled "preservationists" have to.
I wonder how much of the vision for the 1950 version of the grand corridor was provided by local or state legislation and how much came from developers meeting demands of the market as it existed at that time...I really don't know the answer to that...for all the venom some have for the old guard political elite of st Louis, I wonder if they are the ones who get credit for the building and design of st Louis? Or did st Louis and grand ave get built and designed despite an incompetent city hall? Can anything be learned from how st Louis was built originally?
Fighting to save structure for what may exist in the future makes a lot of sense...who knows what the future holds...and when did the label preservationist become derisive? =\
Fighting to save structure for what may exist in the future makes a lot of sense...who knows what the future holds...and when did the label preservationist become derisive? =\
I would suggest that the abatements have worked in the downtown area where there has been development and success so far...the proof will come when the abatements expire and folks are asked to write much larger checks to the government...but obviously abatements have not worked in other areas of the city...Alex Ihnen wrote:I tend to agree, but the availability of basically free land and near zero taxes (with abatement) hasn't worked either. I recognize that this doesn't then mean that taxing land will work. What it would likely do is prevent as many people from acquiring land and sitting on it (see Paul McKee). St. Louis suffers from a lack of turnover on land and buildings. The cause of this is certainly up for discussion.
The heart of the issue for land use in the city is simple lack of demand...in the big picture I think we've seen that no matter what the tax or land use policy, without real demand, nothing is going to work...government has a role in regulating real estate markets...doing the heavy lifting to create and maintain entire markets not so much imo...the answer here to me is to advertise and market the heck outta areas of the city that do work...and try to stimulate both demand and potential supply...
I agree with efforts to preserve the built environment to the largest extent possible...and efforts to encourage more intelligent urban planning...obviously though the best law will never sign leases or generate tax revenue...people working and living do that...which is why I think that the deepest goal of the preservation movement should be seeking, encouraging economic investment and delighting when significant investments are made...not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good...and seeking out partnerships and solutions with those who do choose to invest in the city...
The outrage at SLU is understandable...standing in front of the tank may be the only option left for those who want to fight for the buildings preservation...progressively providing other solutions (as many here do) in the end is much more effective than seemingly only reacting when real investment makes a move...
Don't stop believin!stlgasm wrote:RobbyD-- While achieving the vibrancy of Oakland (Pittsburgh) is indeed a lofty expectation, I absolutely think it's possible. Up until the '50s, the corner of Grand & Olive was well-known to be the busiest intersection in the entire city. The "Times Square" of St. Louis if you will. Of course I realize that those days are long gone, but remember Washington Avenue circa 1993? Transformations are possible, and we have proof of this in our own city. Midtown has a built-in student population of 17,000. That's no small number. Add to that the theatres, museums and other cultural draws of Grand Center, and there is clearly critical mass. I believe the restoration of the Metropolitan building will be a huge catalyst for pedestrian-scaled retail on Grand. And while The Lawrence Group may be on the other side of the Pevely debate, no one can deny their amazing contributions to Midtown in recent years. Steve Smith is a really great guy and he genuinely loves the city. The Pevely building aside, I think he is fully committed to enhancing the urban fabric of Midtown.
Sorry I went off on such a tangent.
- 11K
Regarding who gets credit for the built environment in St. Louis, I'd say it was market-driven, but the "market" was quite different. Namely, the early, dense city fit the need for workers to be close to manufacturing because workers (and owners, managers, etc.) had to walk to work. The city began to spread out with streetcars and then automobiles. Then, with $billions in federal money to build interstates and federally backed home loans for the suburbs (but not for the city), sprawl took off. Since this trend really took hold, we've come to understand the environmental impact of sprawl (driving, fertilizers on yards, etc. etc. etc.) and the social and health impacts. We shouldn't aim to return to the overcrowding of 1940 St. Louis, but we should seek added density. The benefits of increased density are substantive and extensive, getting there, and exactly what it looks like is different for every era. Many (including me) believe that a good place to start is to stop demolition of Historic Register and other significant buildings and require new construction to be on vacant lots or on sites of less urban, historic buildings. We're not looking to the past, we're trying to understand what will create a better future.
^agreed...
I would suggest additional ways to overcome the legitimate concerns vacant properties create via negative perceptions and the depressing effects on land values need to be found...the recent effort to put up posters in vacant store fronts along Manchester was small and a little hokey but had the right intentions...
IOW figuring out how to harness market forces to create density are where lasting answers lie...enforcing preservation board findings may well be necessary and result in a potential future...the reality is that many of the brick ladies in st Louis are not that far from falling down on their own...
I would suggest additional ways to overcome the legitimate concerns vacant properties create via negative perceptions and the depressing effects on land values need to be found...the recent effort to put up posters in vacant store fronts along Manchester was small and a little hokey but had the right intentions...
IOW figuring out how to harness market forces to create density are where lasting answers lie...enforcing preservation board findings may well be necessary and result in a potential future...the reality is that many of the brick ladies in st Louis are not that far from falling down on their own...