urbanSTL

It's worth repeating - the move to downtown does more for SLU than it does downtown. So many people keep this attitude that anything moving downtown is some kind of charity case, that the city now somehow owes SLU/Biondi something. What a bunch of crap. SLU Law is moving downtown because they were just handed a free building across the street from the Civic Courts building and another block from the Federal Court House - and it's less than 2mi from the main campus. At many large schools, 2mi would still easily be ON campus. Downtown should welcome SLU, but wasn't a commitment by the school to rescue an ugly building or play a part in the resurgence of downtown. They did it because downtown has something to offer.

Alex Ihnen wrote:It's worth repeating - the move to downtown does more for SLU than it does downtown. So many people keep this attitude that anything moving downtown is some kind of charity case, that the city now somehow owes SLU/Biondi something. What a bunch of crap. SLU Law is moving downtown because they were just handed a free building across the street from the Civic Courts building and another block from the Federal Court House - and it's less than 2mi from the main campus. At many large schools, 2mi would still easily be ON campus. Downtown should welcome SLU, but wasn't a commitment by the school to rescue an ugly building or play a part in the resurgence of downtown. They did it because downtown has something to offer.

What is that, exactly, though? I mean yeah, it's a big brand new building.

But how does being 5 minutes (by car) closer to those courts make anything better?

As a SLU law student, I am highly skeptical that the new building will mean much, if anything, in the way of new opportunities for the students that don't already exist currently.

I'm not saying I'm not excited about the move, I'm looking forward to brand-new state-of-the-art facilities. But even then, as you already alluded to- we're training to be lawyers. We don't need much in the way of new equipment or machinery or anything, it's just going to be nice for everything to have that new sheen.

In the end, I think this is about helping St. Louis as much as it is helping SLU.

Downtown has made a big turnaround, but saying it's in a "growth" stage is a bit much. It's easy to grow when you bottomed out. Back in the 70's we had people arguing not for convention centers or stadiums downtown but 30,000 residents. St. Louis still has a long way to go before its downtown is where it needs to be, because it started on this strategy rather late in the game. When firms stop asking for handouts -- subsidy, parking, the demolition of one a building to save another -- to stay downtown then you will know downtown has arrived. Or at least that leadership values what people have accomplished to not undermine it.

SLU moving downtown probably looks good to people in suburban areas insofar as it gives downtown credibility. But in reality it's already a great place and would be without SLU. We can't deny the impact of having more people on the street, and this is a good thing, but again if they start asking for subsidy, more parking, then we have to say no. Most likely they wont as this would be in their pro forma. Who knows? They are not saving downtown -- donating millions for the Arcade -- but maybe they will do something to make the building look better.

As a disclaimer I will always dislike SLU and do not take my somewhat positive comments as supporting their coverup of mass demolitions in Midtown.

Fair point. But as long as St. Louis City plays into the zero sum game it will continue. I am not ignorant of the fact that politically it looks really bad for a Mayor to have the headlines "City loses jobs, could have done more," but people need to take a principled stand. This is one region and we shouldn't be fighting over jobs. We are not growing. This is musical chairs. Maybe it's better the firms are in the City, but when average people have to incur the cost of such subsidy through user fees and cuts to public services -- this is a poor city -- I wonder if really these firms are thinking of our best interest.

In political science there's the theory of path dependence, that once you go down a course of action it continues. So this is not an easy thing to stop. I don't fault people for playing this game but when the economy crashes, as it did, you really get to see the problems of such an economic development strategy. Normal people get stuck with the costs and do they even have jobs at these firms?

doug wrote:Fair point. But as long as St. Louis City plays into the zero sum game it will continue.

The zero sum game is not just played in St. Louis. It's being played on a global scale. Cities and countries worldwide are offering huge incentives to lure businesses. This will only increase, with countries like China and India maturing and adding 100's of millions of qualified and well-educated people to the workforce.

I wonder if really these firms are thinking of our best interest.

No they are not, nor do they have an obligation to do so. They have an obligation to make the highest possible profit for the shareholders. Budweiser, for instance, didn't understand this as well as InBev did.

In political science there's the theory of path dependence, that once you go down a course of action it continues.

That is old school thinking. In the global economy, politicians have less and less influence. The new economy is about huge streams of money, flowing to wherever the yield will be the highest.

It's also about who has the best connections with the world. Look at Atlanta: a backwater 30 years ago, it's now a global player. One reason: their airport and the global connections it has afforded them. (The St. Louis region lost more than half its domestic connections and all of its international destinations.)

I agree with you on this: playing local musical chairs is a zero-sum game. If we don't turn the tide quickly (it might already be to late) that's all there's left for us to do. Play musical chairs with local companies. But their numbers will ever decrease (Solutia) because other cities and regions understand that the only way to sustain or grow your economy is to be able to compete on a global scale.

Plugging my own blog... SLU Should Partner With Metro, Not Run Its Own Shuttles

With help from SLU, Metro could conceivably increase the frequency of the 10 Lindell from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes (the 10 Gravois portion of the route would continue to run 30 minutes). Rerouting the bus two blocks east from 14th St to Tucker Blvd would also help encourage use of Metro buses by putting the bus line at the Law School's front door.1 Buses that run 4 times every hour would be a boon for not just SLU students, faculty, and staff wishing to travel to the Central West End in addition to the Midtown and downtown campuses, but for everyone else who uses or depends on the 10 Lindell for getting around St. Louis.

mill204 wrote:Plugging my own blog... SLU Should Partner With Metro, Not Run Its Own Shuttles

With help from SLU, Metro could conceivably increase the frequency of the 10 Lindell from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes (the 10 Gravois portion of the route would continue to run 30 minutes). Rerouting the bus two blocks east from 14th St to Tucker Blvd would also help encourage use of Metro buses by putting the bus line at the Law School's front door.1 Buses that run 4 times every hour would be a boon for not just SLU students, faculty, and staff wishing to travel to the Central West End in addition to the Midtown and downtown campuses, but for everyone else who uses or depends on the 10 Lindell for getting around St. Louis.

What about when a law student wants to hit the library at 2:00 am? Do the buses still run then?

the central scrutinizer wrote:

mill204 wrote:Plugging my own blog... SLU Should Partner With Metro, Not Run Its Own Shuttles

With help from SLU, Metro could conceivably increase the frequency of the 10 Lindell from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes (the 10 Gravois portion of the route would continue to run 30 minutes). Rerouting the bus two blocks east from 14th St to Tucker Blvd would also help encourage use of Metro buses by putting the bus line at the Law School's front door.1 Buses that run 4 times every hour would be a boon for not just SLU students, faculty, and staff wishing to travel to the Central West End in addition to the Midtown and downtown campuses, but for everyone else who uses or depends on the 10 Lindell for getting around St. Louis.

What about when a law student wants to hit the library at 2:00 am? Do the buses still run then?

Our law library is not open then

the central scrutinizer wrote:What about when a law student wants to hit the library at 2:00 am? Do the buses still run then?

Well, for comparison, the SLU's Grand Shuttle runs every 20 minutes from 7 AM to 7 PM.

Hopefully, SLU is also able to erect tasteful but clear signage on the building...The impact on street life downtown will be little affected by the move of SLU Law IMO (students will be in class or studying most of the time (though a very close by watering hole would make a lot of sense)), but the psychological impact of the school's location will have an impact...Especially with teh location on Tucker and facing the park where the building is visible for a number of blocks...

This relocation is a drop in the bucket in one sense for downtown, but is a smaller quality move that really can add to other elements (refurbished library, opera house, Citygarden) that help shape an public impression of downtown as being more vibrant and less decay...Very few will have any actual interaction with teh Law School, but if marketed correctly, very many will have the school factored into their perception of the city...

I would also add that the School itself would see little advantage in being two miles closer to downtown court houses...but being in teh same literal community as the two large firms in St. Louis and the court houses will affect the "feel" of the school...I would think anyway...Rather than being somewhat insulated on the midtown campus or practically enshrined and definitely sheltered in a utopian U City building like Wash U Law, SLU Law will now be physically located in the nitty gritty reality of downtown power structure and social issues...

I'd like to see St Louis University spelled out in blue letters on a rooftop sign facing west, similar to the Budweiser sign on the brewery.

^ Asking for "tasteful" illumination from SLU might be asking for a bit much. As an example, I point to the new med school signs that have popped up in the median of Grand which appear ill-centered and have illuminated white backgrounds with black text. Compare to BJC/WUSM which have dark green backgrounds with illuminated white text.

^Taste will always be in the eye of the biased observer...

I actually think the signs along grand look pretty good...of course, soul train line dance vids from circa 1975 are a guilty pleasure of mine...here's for some white shoes and belts please! Lol...feel the funk.

I would gladly take a green roof if it meant they changed the facade and made the building more attractive. Give me a huge blue neon SLU and Fleur-de-lis signage at the top too and this building will look great.

Would match the green roof on the Peabody across the street...

In somewhat related news (and due to no obvious topic to post), Lindenwood has put a sign up on the downtown campus building on Washington...looks good...