urbanSTL

No, Bethlehem Lutheran is not visible from there. I think you most likely are reffering to Holy Trinity (Catholic)....if it's the one with tall white (limestone) twin steeples you saw. (Beautiful old church...still in operation, I think they had some restoration done several years ago. The steeples used to be lit at night, but I've noticed in the last several years they no longer do this. Hopefully they will again light them, if the neighborhood continues to improve.)

Marmar wrote:And we don't need to build ugly housing projects that hides them away from "the good part of the city" where no one goes, no one cares.

I don't really think this is the purpose of Salisbury Park. Hyde Park (and North St Louis in general) as somewhere that "no one goes, no one cares" about is already the reality. This is an effort to stabilize the environment and bring people back.



And just because you think the houses are ugly doesn't mean they are unsuitable or insulting for people to live in. (For you to say that is, in fact, insulting to those people and is pure snobbery). I agree that they're not the gorgeous brick homes that once stood in that neighborhood. But they're not cinder block high-rise monstrosities or a haphazard shanty-town either.



I admire that you have high standards for your city. I admire that you hold to your ideals. But I think they're a bit unrealistic in some circumstances. In a perfect world, there would be enough money to build beautiful houses that anyone could live in, and we'd all live side-by-side and embrace the social or economic differences in our neighbors. But that's hardly the world we live in.

Marmar wrote:I'd rather see the kind of structures similar to King Louis Square built, with a mix of affordability so that this neighborhood will not again fall into the despair that made it undesirable in the first place.

I was not previously aware of King Louis Square. After a bit of searching, the info I found was quite interesting. It's a lovely development and I agree that it suites the surrounding urban landscape more appropriately than Salisbury Park. (Why are there no photos of the buildings on their Web site though? That's a terrible oversight, if you ask me. I had to dig deep to find images.) Though ... a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit at KLS is more than TWICE the monthly rent of a similar sized Salisbury Park townhouse. So, yes KLS is nicer. But it also costs more to live there and probably was a lot more expensive to build. (Pricing factors also may have something to do with the surrounding neighborhood of KLS moving up the socio-economic scale currently as well ... isn't this where the Georgian Condos are?)

Marmar wrote:what I meant about Pruitt-Igoe was that poor people were lumped together here and forgotten about. Architecturally, these projects were quite attractive and hailed world wide by architects, city planners and urbanists.

Really, I don't want to go off on Pruitt-Igoe ... It's a completely different thing than current low-income housing developments. And it certainly proves that being "hailed world wide by architects, city planners and urbanists" doesn't always provide a decent, usable, sustainable community for people to actually LIVE IN.



On a side note, I've seen the discussion you're involved in on this thread: http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=1977. It's interesting and related to this conversation. But rather than have two parallel threads, I'll won't comment on it here. Just thought it should be looped in here for informational purposes.

SMSPlanstu wrote:That this project should be an exemption to the rule and not a precedent for new housing in Hyde Park (...)



I do like Bosley's idea of separating this development from the stronghold of Hyde Park itself and surrounding blocks so as to bring up property values gradually. However, that slower process of rebuilding/rehabbing a neighborhood from poverty conflicts with the gentrification model in Soulard and Lafayette Square.



In general Hyde Park and other North St. Louis neighborhoods need people, both black and white, of high enough incomes to test the waters by rehabbing to show the way for risk taking developers. This is a stabilization from HUD and section 8 verses stabilization of slow gentrification to market value/competing new construction.

I agree here with SMSPlanstu. I couldn't have explained it any better than that. Thank you!

New-to-STL, have you read the article linked from the Chicago Tribune titled "putting the chic back in Chicago"? If not, please read it...the whole thing (it's kind of long, but fascinating). This is exactly what I'm talking about, my hopes for our city, and I was pleasantly surprised to read that in Chicago it is actually reality.

In a nutshell, the article states that federal housing projects were miserable failures (oh, no kidding...!). Neighborhoods MUST be a mix of high/medium/and low income in order to be successful for the good of the city, for the good of helping the less fortunate (poor), and ultimately for the good of mankind. Neighborhoods in Chicago that were avoided like the plague are now becoming desireable and property values are soring because of GOOD INFILL, yet a small percentage of housing is set aside for the poor. Those moving in have decided that more can be done to help these poor people by having them living in their neighborhoods. Are you willing to have one of these poor families move into YOUR neighborhood?

What you advocate is the status quo of warehousing the poor. Housing for the poor didn't work at 12 stories. What makes you think it will work at two?

I don't understand how you equate my wanting the poor to live in just as good housing as higher income people as snobbery. I rather think it's an insult to poor people to expect them to live in crappy looking structures just because they aren't able to distinguish between what is good architecture and what is bad architecture. After all, when urbanites/vistitors to the city drive by, they know exactly who lives there and make their comments...you think this is good??

I beg to differ with you that "no one goes, no one cares" about Hyde Park and North St. Louis. However, if that's the way you feel, then why continue in this vein? Is it so these people will be far from the reality of your neck of the woods?

I care a great deal about Hyde Park and North St. Louis. Many members care. Many of the people who live there care. To trash it with cheap looking mini Pruitt-Igoes will only result in the same problem that we have been faced with for decades.

The area contained 130 parcels of land with sixty existing structures, most of which contributed to the historic district.

I haven't seen this project so I can't really say anything specific about the new houses. I trust that Alderman Bosley is extremely confident about the long-term success of this development; otherwise, he wouldn't have approved of the demolition of so many existing buildings. Here's hoping his confidence isn't misplaced!