Share
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostOct 22, 2009#26

Grover wrote:^ but Pittsburgh has been in the news a lot lately for "progressive" successes such as becoming a high-tech center, attracting the creative class and supporting local businesses. It's not quite Minneapolis or Denver or Portland, but it's being held up as an example for the rest of the rust belt at the very least.



Chicago is regarded as a city of corruption and segregation by the same people who laud Portland et al as "progressive". Good point about being "successful" though - perhaps "successful" and "progressive" aren't synonyms.


Right, so then the problem is that we all have different perceptions of what "progressive" is.
710
Senior MemberSenior Member
710

PostOct 22, 2009#27

ibleedlou wrote:When I think of a progressive city I think of a city with a growing economy, that embraces new ideas, funds the arts, invests in its infrastructure, sets trends, takes risks, and is inclusive to everyone especially the disadvantaged. When I look at St. Louis I don't see us grading out very high in these catagories and I certainly wouldn't blame that on white flight or a large percentage of African Americans. I'd blame it more on the leadership here who at a certain point felt entitled to be such a sought after location. The famous Chicago quote speaks of St. Louisans rolling up their pants waiting for business while Chicagoans were out in the streets rolling up their sleeves looking for opportunities. I'd say that hasn't changed since when...the 50's?!


I'd have to agree here. Sounds like you read Natures Metropolis... by William Cronon. I'd argue that much of Chicagos urban success is based on many good jobs remaining downtown and in the city. I have to drive anywhere from 40-60 minutes each way to work in freaking west county, because that's where many of the new good jobs that St. Louis does have are. Thats a disaster. All the other young people in my office say they would like to live in the City but aren't willing to make the drive.



Further, if you aren't on a coast or near the mountains, architecture certainly isn't going to be enough for a midwestern city. That's what the Twin Cities have figured out. As a region, we don't invest in the right places when we do have the opportunity.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 22, 2009#28

Xing wrote:
Grover wrote:^ but Pittsburgh has been in the news a lot lately for "progressive" successes such as becoming a high-tech center, attracting the creative class and supporting local businesses. It's not quite Minneapolis or Denver or Portland, but it's being held up as an example for the rest of the rust belt at the very least.



Chicago is regarded as a city of corruption and segregation by the same people who laud Portland et al as "progressive". Good point about being "successful" though - perhaps "successful" and "progressive" aren't synonyms.


Right, so then the problem is that we all have different perceptions of what "progressive" is.


Sure, but the point of the article is that there is a settled definition of "progressive city" by urban planners, environmentalists and others that we see repeated in trade magazines and national publications. This is the definition being addressed.



I do see Pittsburgh as being more "progressive" than St. Louis while I'd say that Chicago is about the same or a bit more "progressive" but not considered so outside the midwest at all.
3,557
Life MemberLife Member
3,557

PostOct 22, 2009#29

^ I agree you could make the argument that St. Louis would be very similar to Chicago if it was the same size. I think certain towns are more diverse and liberal because of their sheer size.
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostOct 22, 2009#30

Grover wrote:
Xing wrote:
Grover wrote:^ but Pittsburgh has been in the news a lot lately for "progressive" successes such as becoming a high-tech center, attracting the creative class and supporting local businesses. It's not quite Minneapolis or Denver or Portland, but it's being held up as an example for the rest of the rust belt at the very least.



Chicago is regarded as a city of corruption and segregation by the same people who laud Portland et al as "progressive". Good point about being "successful" though - perhaps "successful" and "progressive" aren't synonyms.


Right, so then the problem is that we all have different perceptions of what "progressive" is.


Sure, but the point of the article is that there is a settled definition of "progressive city" by urban planners, environmentalists and others that we see repeated in trade magazines and national publications. This is the definition being addressed.



I do see Pittsburgh as being more "progressive" than St. Louis while I'd say that Chicago is about the same or a bit more "progressive" but not considered so outside the midwest at all.


I see Pittsburgh as an equal, although it can trump us at times. I see Chicago as SIGNIFICANTLY more progressive.



I associate one concept with the apparent effort to grow, experiment , achieve goals, and influence. I see the other concept as acceptance that the subject has already accomplished. Yet , the title "progressive" , is rarely granted to cities that have no accepted evidence of "success," from recently experimental, and consequently, influential ideas.



Unless, those you speak of are robots, or zombies, I don't think there is a settled definition on anything. It's always a good idea to leave a little slack.
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostOct 22, 2009#31

I do see Pittsburgh as being more "progressive" than St. Louis


why? everyone I know from Pittsburg now lives here. They ALL seem to think St. Louis is a lot better. Why are you so pro-Pittsbugh? as a whole, it's losing population.



Arch, I know we agree on some things, disagree on others, but you "fix the schools" argument sounds great, but most likely impossible. If i could, i'd instantly turn the whole district into Clayton caliber, but it's not going to happen. but if you want my opinion to "fix" them:

-eliminate teachers unions

-encourage more private schools, ala city academy, new city school, soulard school,

-reach out to more diverse groups of people. I think the schools are mostly black, and not diverse. studys show that black kids perform better with mixed schools. I don't care if it sounds racist, it's true. read the book St. Louis Metamorphosis, look at the education section. Black kids in this region had the best test scores at Clayton. so, diversity with ALL races is key.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostOct 22, 2009#32

JCity wrote:
I do see Pittsburgh as being more "progressive" than St. Louis


why? everyone I know from Pittsburg now lives here. They ALL seem to think St. Louis is a lot better. Why are you so pro-Pittsbugh? as a whole, it's losing population.
Because the grass is greener on the other side. That's why the chicken crossed the road.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 22, 2009#33

innov8ion wrote:
JCity wrote:
I do see Pittsburgh as being more "progressive" than St. Louis


why? everyone I know from Pittsburg now lives here. They ALL seem to think St. Louis is a lot better. Why are you so pro-Pittsbugh? as a whole, it's losing population.
Because the grass is greener on the other side. That's why the chicken crossed the road.




Pittsburgh has just been ranked a top 10 city for job growth in 2009: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/new ... etail.html



You can also look at real GDP growth from 2001-2008:

Pittsburgh 10.9%

Milwaukee 7.6%

Minneapolis-St. Paul 7.6%

Cleveland 6.0%

Chicago 5.5%

Kansas City 5.1%

St. Louis 5.1%

Louisville 3.8%

Cincinnati 1.7%

Indianapolis 1.7%

Columbus 0.6%

Detroit (2.0%)



There are also more bike paths/routes (not to mention a killer bike PGH blog): http://www.bike-pgh.org/onlinemap2/#c=; ... =0;k=0,1,2



Pittsburgh was also named the most livable city in American by The Economist.



But now I've tired of matching your anecdote that "everyone you know from Pittsburgh now lives here," with "anecdotes" of my own.



And I'm not "so pro-Pittsburgh." And I'm not even saying that these benchmarks of a "progressive city" are legitimate or important. My comments have been directed toward the issue of the same cities being cited as "progressive" by the media, urban planners, etc.



Someone asked if I consider it to be more "progressive" than St. Louis and based on the criteria commonly used I said that I do.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostOct 24, 2009#34

Grover wrote:Pittsburgh was also named the most livable city in American by The Economist.
You all know how much we love those surveys! O'Fallon, MO was named one of the most livable cities too. ;)
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostOct 24, 2009#35

Grover wrote:Just think of historic preservation review within the City of St. Louis. If the city were 80% white you can bet that there would be city-wide historic preservation review. There would be more bike lanes too. And "progressives" would rejoice.


You are so wrong. As you often do I'm going to directly link to my blog for my retort.



Here's a small amount:



I've spent a lot of time around St. Louis and seen more than one African American on a bicycle. Sometimes I've seen two at once! In fact Aldermanic President Lewis Reed, A BLACK GUY, came up with the idea of Bike St. Louis. He also played a large role in the rehabilitation of City Hospital. Alderman Antonio French, A BLACK GUY, instated preservation review for his ward and will be issuing an RFP for a historic district survey. Alderman Moore, A BLACK GUY, happens to be doing Wagoner Place on Dick Gregory -- salvaging almost an entire block of historic homes in order to preserve history, which he places very high value upon. He could have easily had them bulldozed and instead built new vinyl housing. I only wish more BLACK ALDERWOMEN were as "progressive" as their male counterparts.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostOct 24, 2009#36

^ Props, Doug. The theory is a bunch of bologna developed by pseudo-intellectual, race-baiting Caucosoids. (To be clear, I'm not talking about Grover.)

PostOct 24, 2009#37

Xing wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
Xing wrote:There are a few contradictions to this claim. Pittsburgh is very white, but going through a lot of the same struggles as St. Louis. Chicago is very black, but a very successful city.
The article's thesis does not involve a city's success -- it's about progressiveness.


Do you view Pittsburgh as more progressive than St. Louis?

Do you view Chicago as more progressive than St. Louis?
I don't know enough about Pittsburgh to have an opinion. As for Chicago, I don't think of it as particularly progressive. They have a no-smoking ban and decent transit at least.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostOct 25, 2009#38

Independent of race, in St. Louis exists a fundamental deficiency with regards to historic preservation. The White Man tears down as much historic property, if not more, as the Afro Man. We have examples of African American elected officials supporting preservation. Moreover, the racist Hoosiers out in St. Charles and the anti-tax Republicans in Town and Country are the ones stopping mass transit. Disadvantaged African Americans would actually benefit greatly with expanded transit. EW Gateway found in 2006 that over 90K people in our Metro area don't have a car or access to transit. Expanding coverage would alleviate that problem. Finally, I've never heard of any minority group or elected official lobbying against transit in St. Louis.



I think certainly issues of gentrification could and do arise from cities which drive up land values through extensive TOD, greenbelts, etc., insofar as the working class may not be able or willing to pay for these systems or able to afford rent. We shouldn't act like there isn't a cost to these systems, but in St. Louis we're so divested I don't think really we would have that problem for a long time -- presupposing McKee sticks to his word and keeps existing businesses (he hasn't already). I do enjoy this conversation, but we also cannot assume that simply everything that progressives (white people) define as "progressive" actually happens to be, while they also do not have exclusive ownership over these concepts. Transit and bike lanes shouldn't be seen as a "white progressive" construct not associated with minorities. African Americans do own bikes and I've seen a lot of them on transit -- a few have asked me for money so they can ride transit. Lewis Reed founded Bike St. Louis.



It could be that some working class African Americans may not choose Portland, for example, as a destination as it's expensive due to the aforementioned systems, but perhaps African Americans don't move to Portland perhaps that relates to the fact that the City has had no historic black migration? As we all know, after the mechanization of the south many -- the largest internal in our history I believe -- migrated to what are now rust belt cities for manufacturing jobs, cheap housing, and to escape Jim Crow. And moreover, do these "progressive" cities have extensive working class Caucasian populations? Couldn't we also enter class into this discussion.



Regardless, in St. Louis minorities simply cannot be blamed for lack of expansion and funding for alternative forms of transportation -- or our soft historic preservation agenda. No facts support this statement and really undermine it.
923
Super MemberSuper Member
923

PostOct 25, 2009#39

How progressive is Europe? More specifially, Scandinavia? How many people of color live in Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands?
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 26, 2009#40

Doug wrote:
Grover wrote:Just think of historic preservation review within the City of St. Louis. If the city were 80% white you can bet that there would be city-wide historic preservation review. There would be more bike lanes too. And "progressives" would rejoice.


You are so wrong. As you often do I'm going to directly link to my blog for my retort.



Here's a small amount:



I've spent a lot of time around St. Louis and seen more than one African American on a bicycle. Sometimes I've seen two at once! In fact Aldermanic President Lewis Reed, A BLACK GUY, came up with the idea of Bike St. Louis. He also played a large role in the rehabilitation of City Hospital. Alderman Antonio French, A BLACK GUY, instated preservation review for his ward and will be issuing an RFP for a historic district survey. Alderman Moore, A BLACK GUY, happens to be doing Wagoner Place on d*ck Gregory -- salvaging almost an entire block of historic homes in order to preserve history, which he places very high value upon. He could have easily had them bulldozed and instead built new vinyl housing. I only wish more BLACK ALDERWOMEN were as "progressive" as their male counterparts.


You continue to fight the fights you want to fight and not the fights that are there.



Just one example: You state "I fail to see how African Americans have impeded our ability to fund, expand, and promote transit throughout the St. Louis Region."



It's a strawman argument. African Americans have not impeded our ability to fund, expand and promote transit throughout the St. Louis Region, but white people's distrust of black people has. White flight from our urban core has. A lack of political homogeneity in significant part driven by racial issues has.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostOct 26, 2009#41

Grover wrote:It's a strawman argument. African Americans have not impeded our ability to fund, expand and promote transit throughout the St. Louis Region, but white people's distrust of black people has. White flight from our urban core has. A lack of political homogeneity in significant part driven by racial issues has.
pwned


migueltejada wrote:How progressive is Europe? More specifially, Scandinavia? How many people of color live in Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands?
A ton of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are moving there.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostOct 26, 2009#42

St. Louis isn't seen as progressive - not necessarily because of race (look at Atlanta) - but because it is a social dump in many ways.



St. Louis is a social dump for a number of reasons.



-There is a very sad and historic racial divide that the so called leaders cannot address properly. Sometimes they – both white and black – contribute to the madness.



-The largest school district in the state sucks and hardly anything is being done to improve it. How in the hell can a place be construed as "progressive" when the local school district is the pits.



-The civic/political structure of the City of St. Louis is outdated.



-Despite the region being home to many F500-F1000 companies and very large private companies, downtown, although much improved, sucks because corporations are emptying (and have emptied) to Clayton and beyond. Not progressive.



-Despite efforts to address the homeless problem, St. Louis still has a terrible homeless problem - which gets back to the educational system, poverty, job training and employment factors. It also has a lot to do with not addressing the mental health patients roaming amongst the homeless.



-St. Louis is very provincial. It gets in the way of real civic/regional progress. You complain about airport expansion-even when it was necessary at the time. Some are still complaining even though a tunnel sits on top of the dirt where homes in Bridgeton used to sit. You complained about lights on the freeways – a brand new freeway – and complained that a new freeway (I-64) did not need to be rebuilt. It is I-64, but you still call it "Forty". And you take pride in it. Not very progressive.



-You have three major supermarket chains feeding you - and they are all locally-owned or based and operated. Not progressive or competitive.



-You have no major public research universities. UMSL is a glorified community college.



-No public medical school. No public law school. I wonder why?



-You have no public hospital district for the poor.



-Your public transportation is financially broke and busted. There's been a discontinuation and limitation of bus lines and train service. It had to BEG for stimulus money. W-T-F. Then some complained about MetroLink going to St. Charles and there's no commuter rail to downtown from West Hell, Missouri.



-You build houses and commercial strips (and possibly casinos) within flood plains.



-You complain about high-rise buildings going up in high-rise districts. W-T-F!



-The St. Louis Metropolitan police department is giving New Orleans' a run for its money in the area of corruption. It has a bunch of uneducated criminals and hate mongers serving on the force. A city can't be too progressive if your police department has the obvious potential to end up on a 60 Minutes piece for all the wrong reasons.



-Locals can't agree on shyt - except the Cardinals.



-The airport is below average. Even with planned upgrades it'll only become average. In the meantime, Indianapolis has a new $1-billion mega terminal with fewer flights than St. Louis.



-Job/population growth sucks.



-Your waterfront in its current form is unimpressive and is an underused dump, literally, where dead bodies are found on occasion.



-Although the Missouri side has had more homicides than the Eastside of the Mississippi River, the Eastside helps to give St. Louis - as a whole- a bad name. However, all the local provincials do is write it off as “their problem” as opposed to addressing poverty and crime as a regional problem.



-Outside of Dallas, Chicago and Houston, St. Louis seems to have more people released from death row and prison for crimes they did not commit, which suggests something is terribly wrong with the justice system. Not progressive.



-You a have a big hole in the ground downtown that not even Rush Limbaugh's fat ass could fit into. Yeah, maybe it's the economy, but in the other cities, this would have been rectified a long time ago. Show me any other major city in America with two big holes downtown. NYC is plugging up the WTC site faster and BPV was proposed before 9/11. W-T-F.



The city government is building downtown parking garages like downtown really needs them, while there's nobody to park in them except fans who come to Cardinals, Rams and Blues games - then many of them come in on trains.



The list could go on and on. So kiddos, St. Louis not being seen as progressive has nothing to do black people. It has to do with your leadership (or lack thereof) and citizenry, who come in all colors.
284
Full MemberFull Member
284

PostOct 26, 2009#43

innov8ion wrote:
Grover wrote:It's a strawman argument. African Americans have not impeded our ability to fund, expand and promote transit throughout the St. Louis Region, but white people's distrust of black people has. White flight from our urban core has. A lack of political homogeneity in significant part driven by racial issues has.
pwned


migueltejada wrote:How progressive is Europe? More specifially, Scandinavia? How many people of color live in Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands?
A ton of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are moving there.


And, speaking very broadly here, those immigrants have virtually no voice in the political process in most European nations, compared with people of color do in a U.S. metro area like St. Louis. Not so progressive.



On the racial aspect of "progressive" cities, I don't know. I think internal migration patterns - and the economics that attracted that migration - have a lot to do with it.

Seattle, Portland, Denver, Minneapolis don't have large black populations because they never attracted much internal migration from the South. Why not? Because for the most part they weren't big manufacturing centers.

As a result, they weren't married to manufacturing through the middle-to-late 20th Century and had to diversify their economy into other things. So, they haven't suffered as much as factory towns through our current period of industrial decline, and have more companies in thriving industries. That attracts mobile young talent, and in turn generates more wealth, which make them more likely to invest in things like transit and to vote for things like smoking bans. And to be seen as "progressive" relative to stagnant or back-sliding cities that are just now shaking off their industrial past. That attracts more. Progressivism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Could the powers-that-be in STL be more forward-thinking? Sure (and Arch points out some good examples). That would help. And the "where'd you go to high school" crowd does none of us any favors.

But there are some big-ass long-term economic and demographic forces at work here, too. And I'm not sure what you do about them.
179
Junior MemberJunior Member
179

PostOct 26, 2009#44

Outstanding Arch!
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 26, 2009#45

^ I found it to be a trite bashing of our city. :(
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostOct 26, 2009#46

Arch City wrote:St. Louis isn't seen as progressive - not necessarily because of race (look at Atlanta) - but because it is a social dump in many ways.



St. Louis is a social dump for a number of reasons.



-There is a very sad and historic racial divide that the so called leaders cannot address properly. Sometimes they – both white and black – contribute to the madness.



-The largest school district in the state sucks and hardly anything is being done to improve it. How in the hell can a place be construed as "progressive" when the local school district is the pits.



-The civic/political structure of the City of St. Louis is outdated.



-Despite the region being home to many F500-F1000 companies and very large private companies, downtown, although much improved, sucks because corporations are emptying (and have emptied) to Clayton and beyond. Not progressive.



-Despite efforts to address the homeless problem, St. Louis still has a terrible homeless problem - which gets back to the educational system, poverty, job training and employment factors. It also has a lot to do with not addressing the mental health patients roaming amongst the homeless.



-St. Louis is very provincial. It gets in the way of real civic/regional progress. You complain about airport expansion-even when it was necessary at the time. Some are still complaining even though a tunnel sits on top of the dirt where homes in Bridgeton used to sit. You complained about lights on the freeways – a brand new freeway – and complained that a new freeway (I-64) did not need to be rebuilt. It is I-64, but you still call it "Forty". And you take pride in it. Not very progressive.



-You have three major supermarket chains feeding you - and they are all locally-owned or based and operated. Not progressive or competitive.



-You have no major public research universities. UMSL is a glorified community college.



-No public medical school. No public law school. I wonder why?



-You have no public hospital district for the poor.



-Your public transportation is financially broke and busted. There's been a discontinuation and limitation of bus lines and train service. It had to BEG for stimulus money. W-T-F. Then some complained about MetroLink going to St. Charles and there's no commuter rail to downtown from West Hell, Missouri.



-You build houses and commercial strips (and possibly casinos) within flood plains.



-You complain about high-rise buildings going up in high-rise districts. W-T-F!



-The St. Louis Metropolitan police department is giving New Orleans' a run for its money in the area of corruption. It has a bunch of uneducated criminals and hate mongers serving on the force. A city can't be too progressive if your police department has the obvious potential to end up on a 60 Minutes piece for all the wrong reasons.



-Locals can't agree on shyt - except the Cardinals.



-The airport is below average. Even with planned upgrades it'll only become average. In the meantime, Indianapolis has a new $1-billion mega terminal with fewer flights than St. Louis.



-Job/population growth sucks.



-Your waterfront in its current form is unimpressive and is an underused dump, literally, where dead bodies are found on occasion.



-Although the Missouri side has had more homicides than the Eastside of the Mississippi River, the Eastside helps to give St. Louis - as a whole- a bad name. However, all the local provincials do is write it off as “their problem” as opposed to addressing poverty and crime as a regional problem.



-Outside of Dallas, Chicago and Houston, St. Louis seems to have more people released from death row and prison for crimes they did not commit, which suggests something is terribly wrong with the justice system. Not progressive.



-You a have a big hole in the ground downtown that not even Rush Limbaugh's fat ass could fit into. Yeah, maybe it's the economy, but in the other cities, this would have been rectified a long time ago. Show me any other major city in America with two big holes downtown. NYC is plugging up the WTC site faster and BPV was proposed before 9/11. W-T-F.



The city government is building downtown parking garages like downtown really needs them, while there's nobody to park in them except fans who come to Cardinals, Rams and Blues games - then many of them come in on trains.



The list could go on and on. So kiddos, St. Louis not being seen as progressive has nothing to do black people. It has to do with your leadership (or lack thereof) and citizenry, who come in all colors.


Wow. As if the weather isn't bad enough. Thanks for making my day with such a balanced take on things.
3,557
Life MemberLife Member
3,557

PostOct 26, 2009#47

Grover wrote:^ I found it to be a trite bashing of our city. :(


Yes, this rant is deeply rooted in the "Why cant St. Louis be insert any city perceived to heaven" side of the debate, that is pretty common in St. Louis and can be very tiresome.



I'm tired of people comparing St. Louis to Atlanta, because frankly its apples and oranges. I'm going to explain why.



Atlanta is a "bubble city"! plain and simple.

When the economy is doing good, then Atlanta is doing awesome.

When the economy is doing ok, then Atlanta is doing good.

When the economy is in recession, then Atlanta is literally hell on Earth!



I had many relatives that had a perception that Atlanta was the number one place in the world for young black professionals, only to go there and figure out that it was all lies. Atlanta is to Afro-Americans, what Miami is to Cubans, New York is to Jews and Italians, LA is to Mexicans and Asians, and Washington D.C. is to politicians :lol: and that is a ethic based good ole boys network!



My relatives all went to Atlanta looking for that latter of success in the 90s and almost all returned to St. Louis within the last few years with horror stories. The biggest complaints:

1) Segregation was just as bad if not worse than St. Louis. Biggest segregation seemed to be between upper/middle class and lower class blacks. Whites far more vocal with their disapproval of blacks, often heard Whites saying "Negros have taken over Atlanta" (implying for the worse).

2) Saturated job market, have to be connected to get a job that is average to come by in St. Louis. More people than Jobs.

3) Easy to spend hours of your day in traffic jams. Marta is a joke and hardly anybody uses it but the poor. People that think St. Louis car culture is bad haven't scene anything.



Not to mention that Atlanta faces far bigger issues in the future that will likely tremendously slow down growth there.

1) Water Needs (There running out)

2) Infrastructure Needs (roads, transit, highways, a lot of areas don't even have sidewalks, which is common in the South)

3) Needs more money for basic services



They want to keep taxes low (which attracts most of the business therefore people and development) but I don't see it being feasible, because they are in dire need of money.
179
Junior MemberJunior Member
179

PostOct 26, 2009#48

I don't think he's bashing the city at all. I think he is pointing out some obvious hang ups and challenges we need to deal with and/or get past if we truly want to be progressive.

Is his post harsh...absolutely, but it points the finger towards leadership and towards us for not holding leadership accountable.
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostOct 26, 2009#49

ArchCity--



Way to quash any positive dialogue. I realize that the suggestion that black people have somehow held St. Louis back is a two-dimensional argument.



Your diatribe is just as simplistic, just as dismissive and arrogant.



The simple fact is that St. Louis has suffered a decline worse than any other major city in the nation (other than Detroit). Whatever the reasons for that fact, the current generation inherits problems they never asked for. It's up to us to fix the problems, and this kind of talk really scares people off.



I, for one, believe in St. Louis. I think we already have the positive momentum going in the past decade. Our biggest stumbling block may be that the region will take even longer to catch up with the city and inner ring suburbs as far as progressive change. You're right that we'll still be facing issues with our airport, regional job growth, intermunicipal tax cannibalization, Clayton and downtown having an antagonistic relationship. Many of your observations run counter to the direction the city is headed. To simply observe "downtown sucks" or people that still call I-64 "Forty" are backwards (???) make you a complete downer and therefore part of the problem.



Let's quit tallying up the points against us and start working for change.



And guess what: whatever you want to call I-64/40 is fine with me. I, for one, think colorful local traditions make a place more livable. It's why leaving New Orleans will be hard for me: people here have such a pride in place, and traditions date back centuries. The culture is palpable and in the air anywhere you go. St. Louis is just starting to awake to the notion that it can once again be proud of its accomplishments, or hope to be a proud city soon at any rate.



I remember the days when a so-called "negative" post on Urban STL was threatened with deletion. We were told this was a place to discuss progress and debate issues with balance and a look to the future--not to play constant obstructionist. Under those terms, Arch, your post should definitely go. I'd hate for it to give our new St. Louisans or would-be St. Louisans the wrong impression about the city we're fighting to improve.
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostOct 27, 2009#50

If only we had more grocery store chains...
Read more posts (75 remaining)
Share