urbanSTL

I agree Doug, I doubt Paul McKee will create a development that compliments that urban environment of the area with affordable housing, but rather build suburban style, possibly even vinyl sided housing that disrespects the street grid, then he will just sell them for 200,000 plus pricing out any poor people attempting to comeback to the Northside (basically modern day Negro removal). Don't get me wrong, St. Louis City will make a substantial comeback within the next couple decade, unfortunately it will most likely be at the expense of the poor and underprivileged. These kind of mass gentrifications have already happened in cities like San Francisco and Boston, where the lower class has been almost completely priced out. St. Louis is just behind the curve, but eventually property values in the city will be higher than the county and then all the former suburbanites will be so proud to show off their clean, novelty, modern, well taken care of, majority white city.

goat314 wrote:I agree Doug, I doubt Paul McKee will create a development that compliments that urban environment of the area with affordable housing, but rather build suburban style, possibly even vinyl sided housing that disrespects the street grid, then he will just sell them for 200,000 plus pricing out any poor people attempting to comeback to the Northside (basically modern day Negro removal). Don't get me wrong, St. Louis City will make a substantial comeback within the next couple decade, unfortunately it will most likely be at the expense of the poor and underprivileged. These kind of mass gentrifications have already happened in cities like San Francisco and Boston, where the lower class has been almost completely priced out. St. Louis is just behind the curve, but eventually property values in the city will be higher than the county and then all the former suburbanites will be so proud to show off their clean, novelty, modern, well taken care of, majority white city.

Doug wrote:The fact is that most suburbanites hold racist stereotypes and prefer homogeneous communities. That's why their communities are designed in a segregated manner, by income, and they have exclusionary zoning. This means that developers will cater to this market and try to do similar developments in African American areas. Yet the key in preventing this is leadership. Without leadership, and the market acting alone, we would see more discriminatory polices and bad design.

I disagree with your statements in italics. Whether or not people prefer homogenous environments (everyone generally does), most people desire to live in neighborhoods that are conducive to raise children in and afford them a good standard of living. Such elements include safety, excellent education opportunities, infrastructure nearby (nice shops, restaurants, entertainment, etc.) Frankly, there are concerns with the above elements in some areas of the city.



Additionally, zoning doesn't discriminate against color; it however can discriminate against those in lower income brackets.



Therefore, the apparent argument that "suburban people" are racist because they don't seem to leap into areas north of Delmar which may be typically African-American is likely invalid.



Finally, this consistent and unjust racism attribution contributes to the perpetuation of the "us vs. them" mentality and racism itself. This is an affront to the truth and should be considered unacceptable.

Moorlander wrote:

goat314 wrote:I agree Doug, I doubt Paul McKee will create a development that compliments that urban environment of the area with affordable housing, but rather build suburban style, possibly even vinyl sided housing that disrespects the street grid, then he will just sell them for 200,000 plus pricing out any poor people attempting to comeback to the Northside (basically modern day Negro removal). Don't get me wrong, St. Louis City will make a substantial comeback within the next couple decade, unfortunately it will most likely be at the expense of the poor and underprivileged. These kind of mass gentrifications have already happened in cities like San Francisco and Boston, where the lower class has been almost completely priced out. St. Louis is just behind the curve, but eventually property values in the city will be higher than the county and then all the former suburbanites will be so proud to show off their clean, novelty, modern, well taken care of, majority white city.

You laugh, but you have not offered up any explanation or speculation for what Paul McKee is doing and its just my humble opinion that the signs point to large scale gentrification. Trust me this has been in the works for a long time in the city of St. Louis and is not a new idea by any means. Even though we laugh at are leaders "supposed" incompetence, we must not believe for one second that they don't know the value of having a strong CBD and how much money can be made in the city. Unfortunately money cannot be made in the city as long as downtown is surrounded by poor people on all sides, because like Doug said a lot of people in the suburbs do have racist stereotypes and DO prefer homogeneous communities and anyone who disagrees is really not being a realist. Unfortunately it is common knowledge in the planning and political world that "nobody wants to live around poor people regardless of race", so common senses says the city has to remove these poor people if they ever expect affluent people to move back to the city (Blairmont = Paul Mckee). Once the rich people invest and come back to the city, all of the social problems will be fixed (schools, transit, crime, etc. etc.), because money talks and anybody who has read the articles about the "suburbs becoming the next slum", know exactly what I mean. All the pieces are being put in place for a population shift. All the poor people will be moved to North St. Louis county and far north St. Louis city, far as possible away from downtown (the economic engine). The near north and south sides will be completely gentrified, surrounding a renewed downtown St. Louis and nobody will have to worry about panhandlers or homeless, because they will have outlawed panhandling for good.

goat314 wrote:Once the rich people invest and come back to the city, all of the social problems will be fixed (schools, transit, crime, etc. etc.), because money talks and anybody who has read the articles about the "suburbs becoming the next slum", know exactly what I mean.

Oh how I wish it were so easy.

^ It is that easy if your rich, name an affluent population with bad schools and high crime. When rich people come throwing around their money, things get done. Nobody can argue the fact that, St. Louis City Schools are bad because the majority of the people attending the schools are poor. NOBODY! The tax base just isn't there. Money moves things in America.

goat314 wrote: Nobody can argue that St. Louis City Schools are bad

I know tons of people who can argue that STL city schools are bad.

Moorlander wrote:

goat314 wrote: Nobody can argue that St. Louis City Schools are bad

I know tons of people who can argue that STL city schools are bad.

sorry worded it wrongly! I meant to say nobody can argue that St. Louis City Schools "aren't" bad.

Doug wrote:Many in suburbia believe that African Americans undermine all of these which you cite. Read Professor Surgue's Origins of the Urban Crisis. You will see how white flight developed not only due to financial incentives, but outright hostility to in-migration of African Americans.

White flight started fifty some years ago in a different time. I believe many find racism distasteful and there is no law against divestment.

Doug wrote:Of course zoning can't be based upon race. But the end result of zoning out cheaper housing and dense apartments means African Americans, who are of lower median income, can't afford housing. Compounded with the flight of jobs to suburbia, and poor transit, we have the spatial mismatch problem.

No. First, nearly all people can afford housing. Those who aren't, are homeless. Second, zoning doesn't discriminate against African Americans. It discriminates against those of lower median incomes, as you affirm. Lower median income caucasian, hispanic and asian people fall victim to the same restrictions. And yes, there is some level of spatial mismatch. There are developers who are working to improve this situation, however. Public transportation is also available and improving.

Doug wrote:Race cannot be the criteria of zoning, but it's the effect. It is undeniable. And it's wrong.

Race is the effect of zoning? I'm fascinated to learn that zoning undeniably created Caucasians, African-Americans, etc. But why is it wrong for zoning to create different races of people?

Doug wrote:American was founded upon equality of opportunity. Denying an entire demographic runs contrary and is racism no matter how you frame their motivations.

Sorry, but there is no precise definition of "equality of opportunity." When speaking of equality in America, we speak of the protected classes and enforcement thereof under various acts and commissions such as the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, etc. No one is denying anything from any demographic. Life isn't fair and your analysis is nebulous.