stlpcsolutions wrote:It is hard to see housing construction slowing if you visit St. Charles. They are building sterile subdivisions everywhere.

No sh*t. My wife and I spent Saturday in the Wentzville-O'Fallon area assessing the latest developments. Her cousin is an interior decorator, and is responsible for the furnishings of a Taylor Morley display home in Wentzville, so we stopped by to admire her work. I was impressed with her talent, even if she couldn't do a thing to address the fact that this home was grossly oversized for any family of fewer than seven people. After that, we had some time to take in the recent developments out there- something I haven't done in over a year.



Frankly, because of the traffic, I try to avoid Saint Charles County as much as possible. I've even taken creative routes to get to Kansas City and Columbia to avoid the cluster**** of Interstates 64/40 and 70, and (Missouri) Highway 94.



That said, there's still no dearth of new construction wherever you go in O'Fallon, Dardenne Prarie, Lake Saint Louis, or Wentzville. O'Fallon has annexed west of Highway 40, and Wentzville is gobbling up land south along Missouri Highway Z. I saw the Wal-Mart Supercenter, the Target in progress, the cluster of businesses around Winghaven, and, um, HUNDREDS of vinyl-clad McMansions that were either under construction or just completed.



Missouri Highway K, IMHO, is just a complete mess now. Saturday afternoon traffic made me long for the worst rush hour bottlenecks in Saint Louis, city OR county. Missed your turn? Prepare to drive 2-3 miles out of the way. Oh, and it's always fun to have people tailgating each other at 45-50 mph, only to hit the brakes every 10-20 seconds. Sheesh.



We also toured New Town before escaping ChuckCo, and noticed a somewhat pleasant new home development along Highway 94 (Montecito- with homes that appear to be Craftsman-inspired). At least the siding doesn't look as chintzy, the garage doors aren't all white, and the homes have some variety.



So, in summary, homes may not be built at a breakneck pace as they have been in the last 10-20 years. And it's clear that the momentum of home construction seems to be shifting to the Illinois side. Still, people shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that Saint Charles County's growth is slowing down that much- not by any means.



If county leaders had a handle on infrastructure, better standards for new construction, and weren't content to merely siphon businesses and people from Saint Louis County- I might consider it to be good news.

^

I both live and work in O'Fallon. My commute is about 5 minutes. If I got a job in the city, I'd try to move there as soon as I could.

m2tbone wrote:^

I both live and work in O'Fallon. My commute is between about 5 minutes. If I got a job in the city, I'd try to move there as soon as I could.

I always hated Rush L. but, dito.

Agreed.



Rich by Lindenwood Park.

stlpcsolutions wrote:I maybe beating a dead horse, but celebrating sprawl is the same as celebrating the destruction of the urban core. As cities sprawl, the core, densly poplulated areas, tend to suffer as population and thus tax dollars leave.



Not to mention the fringe costs needed to support the sprawl: taxes to pay for infrastructure, and increased dependency on oil.



Sorry, but I am not going to celebrate St. Charles development. This forum is "Urban" St. Louis, not Suburban St. Louis.

Hey, I totally agree with you. Just don't forget that not ALL developments in St. Charles Co. are bad. Most are (95% probably are!) . But there are a number of people who live and work in St. Charles. Moving to the city would mean ADDING to the congestion, oil dependence, etc.



My motto is that everybody should live close to work. Those who don't are jerks because they are making the rest of us pay for their driving habits both in taxes that support the infrastructure and by ushering in peak oil and a host of environmental problems that will cost our children billions.



An interesting urban planning problem would be to analyze why businesses move from city cores to the fringe cities (Clayton, St. Charles, etc.). I?m sure this has been done somewhere. I?d be interested in seeing it.

^ well said tjacorn. We should promote good development, no matter where it occurs. It is always a plus when people can live a short distance from their workplace; this entails not only residents moving into downtown, but workplaces moving to outer communities. stlpc is correct that we shouldn't celebrate sprawl, but all development outside the city isn't sprawl.



I think some of the main reasons businesses move are: more favorable taxes in the suburbs and being closer to their workforce. These are both perfectly valid reasons, and if I were running a company it would be tough to ignore these factors.

I'd also like to point out that economic shifts have caused more jobs to move across the Missouri River. IE, the people moved to St. Charles, so the businesses followed. O'Fallon ripped MasterCard out of St. Louis County, for example.



For me, suburban sprawl is a double edged sword. On one hand, it removed people from the core of St. Louis, taking jobs and homes further and further away from downtown and the central areas of the Metro area. On the other hand, suburban sprawl leaks out and basically aborbs smaller towns until it's all one gigantic sea of people. This removes one of the great advantages that St. Louis has always carried over many other cities, and that is a unique countryside. My parents are friends with the owners of Sugar Creek Wineries, and you used to have to drive for a half an hour of nothing but country side to get there. Now it's about 10 minutes.



The sprawl not only takes jobs and people away from the city, eating away at the urban core, but it also swallows up the countryside, which many (like me and my family) like to enjoy as a vacation.



So while I understand people wanting to be close to their jobs, and usually encourage people to use as little gas as possible...the reason the jobs are out there is because of sprawl, not the cause of it.

^ True, you are in a unique situation with your clients being all over the metro area, obviously it would be better for you if everyone were concentrated in a small area.

So while I understand people wanting to be close to their jobs, and usually encourage people to use as little gas as possible...the reason the jobs are out there is because of sprawl, not the cause of it.

For me the issue is sprawl, not suburban development, and I think we should distinguish between the two. IMO, the first is bad, the other is OK. Jobs are not going to come rushing back into downtown, the best thing I think we can do is try and locate more jobs close to employees, and locate more employees close to jobs (ie residents in downtown).

trent wrote:The sprawl not only takes jobs and people away from the city, eating away at the urban core, but it also swallows up the countryside, which many (like me and my family) like to enjoy as a vacation.

I understand your point about the countryside. I?d like to see a dense city with a sharply defined edge surrounded by open countryside as much as anyone, it makes a pretty mental picture, but so many people find suburban life attractive that we need to find a happy medium between the dense city/untouched countryside vision at one extreme and our current sprawling situation near the other extreme. But what I?m saying it?s not bad for jobs to be located in chesterfield or st. charles, or Oakville for that matter if it helps people have shorter commutes and a higher quality of life. The better residential/jobs balance downtown has with the rest of the region the better.



I think we definitely need some curbs on sprawl-type development, but should concede that a certain amount of the countryside is going to be taken up with suburban development. While regrettable, there is still plenty of countryside in a state like Missouri, even if it?s a little farther out than it used to be.

^

I think you're missing my point just a bit. People move out, then people need stuff, so retail goes out, retail needs workers so 'affordable housing' gets built, then more people move out, then companies relocate to be closer to people, so people move further out.



And frankly, I don't see how your idea of suburban development and sprawl are any different. I don't have a problem with suburbs, to be completely honest. By definition, a suburb is an area that relies on the urban city. Suburbs can have their own business centers, and offer a variance of a lifestyle that isn't urban, or city, living.



For me sprawl coincides with the term exurb. Which is a once small community now engulfed by rapid growth of non-urban development. Usually containing cheap housing, and expanding retailers like Wal-Mart.



Downtown St. Charles is obsolete now as a urban center, because the 'center' of St. Charles has moved due to sprawl. St. Charles was a great place 10 or 15 years ago. But it's become an exurb and hardly identifiable as it's own community.



As for the country-side aspect. I don't fault people for wanting to live in the country. I enjoy the country. But living in St. Peters or Arnold isn't country living. The expansion is one thing...but the rapid, mindless expansion that has happened in the United States is something completely different.



Smart development and expansion just hasn't happened, and it's tearing up the land. Places like New Town are finally getting the idea of smart development, but the rest of the outskirts of St. Louis, and many other cities around the country, are just ravaged by poor expansion.

trent wrote:
Smart development and expansion just hasn't happened, and it's tearing up the land. Places like New Town are finally getting the idea of smart development, but the rest of the outskirts of St. Louis, and many other cities around the country, are just ravaged by poor expansion.

I agree with you here. To me this "poor expansion" is sprawl, but as you mention New Town is taking a smarter approach, and that's where I think sprawl and suburban development are not necessarily one and the same. Although I would prefer New Town be located closer to a job center.



If suburban development took place around established centers, or new centers were created in some more recent suburbs, I think it would improve the quality of life of the people who live there. To me this is smarter than being against suburban development and saying everything needs to head back to the city (I realize you didn't say this, but I get the impression a lot of people feel this way). The suburbs are going to grow whether we want them to or not, the issue should be how to capture this growth in a "smart" way.



p.s. - I get your point that the reason anything is out there in the first place is technically "sprawl", I'm just trying to advocate that when new development takes place in these areas, it takes a better form.

trent wrote:I'd also like to point out that economic shifts have caused more jobs to move across the Missouri River. IE, the people moved to St. Charles, so the businesses followed. O'Fallon ripped MasterCard out of St. Louis County, for example.

And what really irks me is that the State of Missouri gave MasterCard and CitiMortgage tens of millions of dollars combined to relocate from Saint Louis County to O'Fallon.



That doesn't even take into account the state's lax TIF regulations used to build shopping venues in the most prosperous suburbs or the disproportionate amount of money the county receives for highway construction and expansion, while the infrastructure in the city and inner suburbia generally suffers in comparison.



And don't get me started on floodplain development on BOTH sides of the Missouri River. Missouri leads the nation in floodplain development. After the 1993 flood and Hurricane Katrina, that's something of which we can really be proud...



I have no problem with suburbia per se. I realize what's right for urbanites, myself included, in terms of density and urbanity is not necessarily right for someone else. I do, however, have a problem with the haphazard expansion of land use in our area, which has grown exponentially faster than our metropolitan population. And moreover, I really have a problem with the way in which this so-called 'growth' is subsidized.