The only time I hear about the World's far is when watching ANY AND EVERY TV SHOW DOING SOMETHING IN ST. LOUIS.. And I can't stand it. The only city on any TV show (House Hunters, What You Get For The Money, Man vs. Food) that gets little to no credit for everything else going for the city, and instead mentions something that happened 105 years ago.
- 11K
^ sure, but what I don't get (as a non-native) is why people are so sensitive to mentioning it. We should be happy to talk about it. People still talk about the prior World Expo in Chicago - there are books written about it etc. The World's Fair here was an incredible event. Imagine millions of people visiting St. Louis more than 100 years ago - the city really was an outpost of sorts. The Fair marked the city's arrival and introduced mid-America to millions. The Fair is an incredible, wonderful and important part of our history. People talk about the Statue of Liberty in NYC, all the monuments in D.C., the Golden Gate Bridge in SFO (and the Arch here of course) and none of those are particularly relevant to the interesting and vibrant areas of any of those cities.
sure, but what I don't get (as a non-native) is why people are so sensitive to mentioning it.
I think it's because it was the last "great" thing to happen to STL, and people here are sensitive to it.
Or it could be that people speak of the World's Fair as if STL's best days are long gone...
I get tired of hearing about it because it's like the only good thing that's happened here was the World's Fair...it's like get over it already.
Besides, how many of us were around for the World's Fair? Something has to have happened we can talk about and take pride in since then
Arch City wrote:Oh, I get it now..........
The 1904 World's Fair is sacred - like Obama once was.
No. You don't get it. The World's Fair isn't sacred. Mock it all you want. What annoys me is the way some people characterize St. Louisans as obsessed with the World's Fair. I just don't see that. Again, my point was that the whole "St. Louis just can't get over the world's fair" is something that a Chi-town douchebag says who doesn't understand the place and just enjoys belittling it.
And Obama? Really? Come on, now.
But hey, at least you're good at making cheap shots.
Arch City wrote:But hey, St. Louis is making good strides.
Arch City wrote: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.
True. This is a problem. Not one that differentiates us from a whole lot of other places, but a problem nonetheless.
Arch City wrote:-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.
Hahahaha. It's cute that you think "something" can be done about the SLPS. It's been reiterated ad nauseam that the true problem with the SLPS is the student body. Inner city schools from coast to coast have major issues. I can't think of a single big city that does have a great public school system. Does this excuse St Louis? No. No, it doesn't. But you've posited this as something that makes St. Louis not "progressive" enough for you. But it's "progressive" in LA because? What? It's just "cooler" to have a failing public school system there?
Arch City wrote:-The civic/political structure of the City of St. Louis is outdated.
I really don't know what this means. You will have to elaborate. It's old? the City Charter isn't even a hundred years old yet. The U.S. Constitution is well over two hundred. Is that an outdated system?
Arch City wrote:-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.
Yeah. It does sucks. As does the loss of corporate HQs. But is that the fault of St. Louisans themselves? Or the reptilian logic of a market economy?
Arch City wrote:-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.
Another arena in which we could certainly do better. But, I really don't see how our problem is any worse than anywhere else comparable. But you're right, it's a problem. A global one. Humanity isn't very progressive.
Arch City wrote:-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.
Well I already excoriated you on "I64" issue. (BTW, I checked yesterday, and the signs do have both designations on them). Not very progressive to stick to local quirks is it?
Arch City wrote:-You have three major supermarket chains feeding you - and they are all locally-owned or based and operated. Not progressive or competitive.
You have had to have been drinking or smoking pot when you wrote this. It's not "progressive" to not have national chains?? Ludicrous. You're right. Downtown won't arrive until we get a Wal-Mart, a Cracker Barrell, a couple of Motel 6s, and a couple Applebee's. Nothing says "progressive" like mindless conformism and soul-crushing homogeneity!
Arch City wrote:-You have no major public research universities. UMSL is a glorified community college.
Well, Arch, I guess that does suck a little bit. But again, not much we can do about that. And, apart from a few exceptions, I think St Louis has a pretty solid educational system all around. I know plenty of cities that would love to have WUSTL in town. Can you give us props for that?
Arch City wrote:-No public medical school. No public law school. I wonder why?
Addressed this previously. But I love your rhetorical question there. Implicitly you're saying "because St Louis is a racist provincial cow town, full of fat rednecked "elites" who want to keep the poor from becoming physicians and lawyers." When in reality, it's a combination of the facts that we're an old city with institutions founded before the days of public education, with the fact that the state doesn't have unlimited resources. Think of the state as a poor, tighfisted stepfather, and St. Louis the redheaded stepchild.
Arch City wrote:-You have no public hospital district for the poor.
Well we used to. Then things got astronomically expensive. The City's barely hobbling along as it is. Do other cities have free hospitals for the poor? I honestly don't know.
Arch City wrote:-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.
True. This is a problem. No, it's not progressive. But again, it's a money issue. It would be cool to have god-like powers and infinite resources to build a kick-ass transit system, but this is reality, not SimCity.
Arch City wrote:-You build houses and commercial strips (and possibly casinos) within flood plains.
True. But Californians build homes subject to wildfires, mudslides, and earthquakes. And in New Orleans, they're rebuilding a city behind levees that are in worse condition than they were before. But you're right. WE'RE not progressive, but those areas are. Right.
Arch City wrote:-You complain about high-rise buildings going up in high-rise districts. W-T-F!
Correction: a few NIMBY's do. Do you take a few angry posters on stltoday as representative of the entire area? It kind of seems like you do. I think a lot of people are happy to see new towers.
Arch City wrote:-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.
I agree that a corrupt police department is a problem. I don't agree that ours is any worse. I just don't have the evidence for that. Corruption is a bad thing, no doubt a bout it. A disgrace. But I fail to see the connection between corruption and an anti-progressive mindset. Ever hear of Chicago? How about Washington, DC? Corrupt AND progressive!
Arch City wrote:-Locals can't agree on shyt - except the Cardinals.
Hmmm. That's a pretty broad brush stroke. This borders on a meaningless statement. In any event, a lot of people can't stand Tony LaRussa, so apparently we can't agree on anything. But now that I think about it, you're right. Differing opinions truly are a sign of a low brow anti-progressive mindset. According to your logic on names of highways and and the importance of national chains, only uniformity is progressive!
Arch City wrote:-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.
True. Not the best airport. But that is more indicative of our poverty, not our mindset. And Indy is an unfair example in a lot of ways when comparing St. Louis to other cities. It's the only big city in the state, and it's the state capital. They have a much easier time getting money.
Arch City wrote:-Job/population growth sucks.
True.
Arch City wrote:-Your waterfront in its current form is unimpressive and is an underused dump, literally, where dead bodies are found on occasion.
Who cares? This is/was an industrial city. Our riverfront was never pretty. Moreover, the Mississippi is a wild b****. She'll never succumb to any efforts to make her cute. Frankly, I could care less about the riverfront. It should be at the bottom of our priorities. We have plenty of other problems to deal with. As to the dead bodies thing: another cheap shot. Hello, Anacostia!
Arch City wrote:-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.
I'll give you the "it's their problem" thing. And that happens just on the MO side, too.
Arch City wrote:-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.
Key word here: "seems." You have absolutely no evidence of this. It's all in your head, in your perceptions.
Arch City wrote:-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.
True. But again it IS the economy. That and some greedy, incompetent developers. But that's a problem of humanity's, not just here. Frankly, the mayor's office did a pretty good job with this in not giving away the store. I'd actually chalk that up to being "progressive," in not caving in to the demands of the developers. And NYC??? Are you serious? A: it's NYC. B: it's the site of the WORST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL in terms of civilian casualties. But you're right, it's totally fair to compare the two.
Arch City wrote: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.
True. But is it not progressive for people to come downtown on trains? Wait, I thought we had a terrible mass transit system. . . . .
This list is an example of what happens when one's perceptions guides his reasoning. You start out with the assumption that St Louis is backwards, and then you start seeing it in all kinds of things that either don't in fact indicate backwardness or is no different from any other place.
Arch City wrote:So kiddos, St. Louis not being seen as progressive has nothing to do black people. .
This is absolutely correct. I avoided this thread for awhile because I thought the whole idea that a "white" city is somehow more progressive than others patantly ridiculous, offensive, and surely divisive. It's frankly wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it confuses race with culture. But I couldn't sit by, Arch, and see you trash my hometown unjustifiably simply because you were angered by the article's thesis.
If anything, it's your incessant negativity, nit-picking, and belittling of St. Louis that is truly the most anti-progressive of St. Louis traits.
- 8,922
I love it when the moderators get after it! Well
done fellas.
In my well traveled observations the most progressive cities are the ones with the most non native/transplant residents and entreprenuers as well as rapidly growing populations. Is it possible for rapidly growing cities to be non progressive? Can a city like StL with a stagnant population be considered progressive?
done fellas.
In my well traveled observations the most progressive cities are the ones with the most non native/transplant residents and entreprenuers as well as rapidly growing populations. Is it possible for rapidly growing cities to be non progressive? Can a city like StL with a stagnant population be considered progressive?
- 2,093
^For the most part I agree about transplant cities being most progressive. However I don't find Phoenix necessarily progressive, and very few Phoenicians were born and/or raised there.
This conversation is further devolving into l0lz but here goes...
Confuses race with culture? Culture characterizes race.
culture: "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group."
Does attacking another person make one's point look smarter?Steve wrote:You have had to have been drinking or smoking pot when you wrote this.Arch City wrote:-You have three major supermarket chains feeding you - and they are all locally-owned or based and operated. Not progressive or competitive.
If we were more progressive, it wouldn't be a money issue. It simply wouldn't be an issue.Steve wrote:True. This is a problem. No, it's not progressive. But again, it's a money issue. It would be cool to have god-like powers and infinite resources to build a kick-ass transit system, but this is reality, not SimCity.Arch City wrote:-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.
It would have helped if the author simply stated their thesis more clearly. He should have stated that homogeneous cities are more progressive. Even then, he couldn't be more wrong. True, progressive cities require the "Wisdom of the Crowds" environment which necessitates heterogeneity.Steve wrote:Arch City wrote:So kiddos, St. Louis not being seen as progressive has nothing to do black people. .
This is absolutely correct. I avoided this thread for awhile because I thought the whole idea that a "white" city is somehow more progressive than others patantly ridiculous, offensive, and surely divisive. It's frankly wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it confuses race with culture. But I couldn't sit by, Arch, and see you trash my hometown unjustifiably simply because you were angered by the article's thesis.
Confuses race with culture? Culture characterizes race.
culture: "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group."
Oh c'mon. You can't have your cake and beat it too. Progression toward progress requires many kaizen bursts. Hiding Flemishes will not make them go away. OTOH, the criticism should be constructive and lead toward solutions. It should not serve to simply divide us and create friggin pity parties.Steve wrote:If anything, it's your incessant negativity, nit-picking, and belittling of St. Louis that is truly the most anti-progressive of St. Louis traits.
- 11K
Wouldn't having prisoners released from death row be considered "progressive"?
I don't get it (or some of the other back and forth!).
I don't get it (or some of the other back and forth!).
- 516
southsidepride wrote:^For the most part I agree about transplant cities being most progressive. However I don't find Phoenix necessarily progressive, and very few Phoenicians were born and/or raised there.
I think its more about the age and education level of the transplants. My guess is that even if you take transplant out of the equation, the cities with the greater number of educated young are "progressive."
innov8ion wrote:If we were more progressive, it wouldn't be a money issue. It simply wouldn't be an issue.Steve wrote:True. This is a problem. No, it's not progressive. But again, it's a money issue. It would be cool to have god-like powers and infinite resources to build a kick-ass transit system, but this is reality, not SimCity.Arch City wrote:-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.
Thought I should point out that Portland, the paragon of progressiveness that it is, is currently facing funding shortfalls for Tri-Met.
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/por ... by-17.html
I lived in Portland for 4 years in high school. It's remarkably progressive in some ways, and bass ackwards in others. There is plenty of lowbrow strip development, suburban hell, and backwater places, just like here. It does have the benefit of virtually no "rust belt" history, though.
- 11K
JMStokes wrote:It does have the benefit of virtually no "rust belt" history, though.
I really think that this is a significant point. If cities like St. Louis didn't have to deal with brownfields, loss of manufacturing jobs and the effects of the historic black/white divide perhaps we would be more "progressive".
- 5,433
JMStokes wrote:I lived in Portland for 4 years in high school. It's remarkably progressive in some ways, and bass ackwards in others. There is plenty of lowbrow strip development, suburban hell, and backwater places, just like here.
Careful. You might burst some bubbles in this town with talk like that.
Next thing you know, you're gonna tell us Chicago isn't perfect either.
- 11K
Just please leave me my boyhood image of Ft. Wayne fantasyland (minor league baseball, a huge a$$ mall and neato zoo)!
- 2,093
The streets of Portland could be paved with winning lottery tickets but considering the cloudy dreary weather that we had for the last two weeks of October is what they have a vast majority of the year they can keep it!
Indian summer is here! 75 and sunny over the weekend--woo hoo!
(Sorry throatybeard, I know you consider such heavenly weather "oppressive"
)
Indian summer is here! 75 and sunny over the weekend--woo hoo!
(Sorry throatybeard, I know you consider such heavenly weather "oppressive"
)Steve, I find it interesting that throughout your response (or elaboration), you hardly managed to challenge St. Louis to look inward (or in the mirror). I mean rarely. Instead, you deflected by suggesting the same ol' stale arguments many St. Louisans tend to do and that is, "Well, (insert the negative) happens in New York, Chicago etc. so St. Louis isn't so bad or is in good company."
I think your response is very emotional in nature. You are taking this way too personally. It's as if comments were said about you - when really they were not. Keep in mind that I am a St. Louisan too. Then, you call yourself dissecting my positions, but you didn't offer your own set (or list) of why St. Louis isn't seen as progressive by others. Maybe it's because you are satisfied with the state of St. Louis?
Nevertheless, I addressed the question of St. Louis' progressiveness (or the lack of it) and how I perceive it as it relates to St. Louis - not yours.
Anyway, allow me to touch on some of your statements:
You suggest because urban public schools coast-to-coast are bad, it's okay for St. Louis to have bad schools too. Just because LA, SF, DC or NYC doesn't get it right with their schools, it doesn't mean St. Louis should get it wrong too. This is the terrible status quo mentality that I have been referring. And if the problems with the SLPS are about "the students" then it goes towards my argument that socially something is awry in St. Louis.
Whether the problem is the SLPS administration, the mayor, the students, the parents, the teachers or all of them, St. Louis should keep trying to better its schools until its done right. That's PROGRESSIVENESS. Why write off the SLPS as "it’s the students" when these students are going to be living in YOUR COMMUNITY?
Further, just because there is corruption with other law enforcement agencies nationwide, it doesn't mean it's okay for the St. Louis Police Department to be corrupt. That's not very progressive in thought. It's very status quo and lazy. St. Louis needs to demand professionalism from its officers regardless of what is going on in Chicago, SF or Dallas. A progressive, professional, uncorrupt police force has progressiveness written all over it. It's trustworthy.
And steve, are you serious? Do you really think the question posed, "I wonder why?" was referencing race? See, this is what I am concerned about with regards to St. Louis. Many issues/discussions tend to be centered on race.
steve, for the record, the question was directed more towards existing institutional powerhouses – namely Washington University and St. Louis University, who have the ability to close off city streets, demolish buildings etc. In addition, those two medical schools alone bring millions upon millions of federal research dollars to St. Louis. As I perceive it, why would local leadership risk facing the wrath of these institutions – especially SLU? The reference alluded to the potential those institutions have to nix – on the Missouri side – competing law and medical schools - especially SLU. The question had nothing to do with race. (sigh)
Further, just because the state cannot afford to create a public law and medical school in the St. Louis region at this time, it doesn't mean St. Louis leadership should not pursue it in the future. If the leadership can pursue monies for bridges, highway ramps, stadiums, museums on the riverfront or a statewide bicycle race – certainly they can pursue monies geared towards enhancing the educational infrastructure of St. Louis. For the record, Lincoln University used to have a law school in St. Louis.
![]()
More photos of Lincoln Law in St. Louis
Lincoln Law information
And steve, in case you don't know, St. Louis is one of the most racially segregated cities in America.
![]()
Although segregation isn't an exact indicator of actual black/white relationships, I feel the racial relationships in St. Louis are horrific. Are there racial problems in other places? Hell yes! But it's particularly bad in St. Louis. Keep in mind I live in Houston most of the year and as backwards as Texas can be sometimes, I'll take Houston anyday but would still root for St. Louis. Friends living in other places, who happen to be from St. Louis, echo my sentiments. I have friends living in Kansas City, Atlanta, Houston, even Chicago who say they'll never move back to St. Louis.
Plus, I know educated people in St. Louis (pastors, city employees, transit workers, professionals etc.) who like/love St. Louis, but say the racial problem is a barrier. That's not very progressive. Read some of the comments on stltoday or on the forum from time-to-time.
Sorry, but I don't feel the same level of racial tension in Houston as I do in St. Louis. Maybe it's because Houston is more international and it strives to be the best whereas most of the time St. Louis seems okay with the status quo.
Also steve, I see you are a status quo guy. Which is okay with some people because it is "safe". It's what you know.
However, should St. Louis not be progressive and consider ideas such as Unigov in Indianapolis, similar combined governments, or create one tailored to local interest and advancement? Seriously, how many other cities have damn near 100 people sitting on their Boards of Aldermen/women or City Councils? Come on. St. Louis' governmental structure is a bloated bureaucratic Nightmare on Tucker @ Market Strs. It hinders progress. (Personally, I can't wait for Republicans to get elected in decent numbers at City Hall. A one party government rule is not progressive.)
In regards to the hospital system for the poor, trust me, St. Louis (the region) has the money to put together the best public hospital system in the country if they wanted it. They don't do it because it is a social dump, which blames "them" (whoever they are) for exploiting tax dollars. But when they want their stadiums they beg for stimulus money.
In addition, it is your partly your fault when you can't keep corporations downtown – especially when local corporations do not choose your CBD unless they have a gazillion dollars in incentives. That is not progressive. Downtown Clayton is clean, has a nice streetscape, and is mostly free of panhandlers, homeless and mentally-ill people. Police should not be assigned to problem areas after four people have been shot up on the westside of downtown St. Louis. It's reactive - not proactive. Get more police patrols to thwart crime etc. downtown on continuous basis - walk, bike, drive. This is not rocket science. Continue to clean up your downtown then CEO's leading local corporations might feel more compelled to relocate to downtown St. Louis versus Clayton or Chesterfield. Idea: Have a real estate summit with companies too timid to invest downtown. Sell your downtown to them when the rough edges are addressed. Hey, now that's progressive.
Regarding the homeless problem, it's St. Louis' problem – not some other city's, steve. Now to its credit, St. Louis did get creative when addressing its homeless problem in recent month – and there will always -be homeless people; however when your downtown streets and neighborhoods are more presentable maybe there will be an inclination towards more investment, which means it helps the city PROGRESS.
On other points you made:
The new highway signs are law, steve. There may be new "I-64" signs going up on the new pavement, but many of you are still going to call it "Farty" because you can't seem to get out of the past. It's the stubbornness of many St. Louisans. You keep writing it off as a "quirk", but in reality it is just plain country as hell. Not to mention the potential to confuse the hell out of visitors/travelers. Please don't ask a native for directions. W-T-F.
On the riverfront issue, maybe there are dead bodies found there because, like you, some locals could care less about the riverfront. Who cares if a visitor strolls along the riverfront from the Millennium Hotel or Four Seasons and discovers a rotting corpse with vultures and flies feeding on it? World class, right? With a world class riverfront, maybe the body dumpers would be more inclined to dump somewhere else. Again, just because bodies are dumped in the Anacostia doesn't mean it should happen on the St. Louis Mississippi Riverfront. Yeah, that's not real progressive.
On the airport comment, poverty can be a direct result of mindset. However, St. Louis is not broke nor has it ever been to my knowledge. You all are just lazy and apathetic. Did you know the voters in St. Louis City passed a $1-billion bond issue some years back for airport upgrades in the future? These funds are separate from the runway expansion.
On the issue of the grocers, (sigh) St. Louis has been a major player in the grocer business forever (I know this and get it); however, the underlying comment was not about grocers per se. The underlying suggestion was about the overall reserved/unprogressive/conservative nature of the St. Louis business community, which can be adverse to outside competition (Schnucks, Dierbergs). The grocer comment was simply a loose example. I am glad ibleedlou got it. Further, among major cities, St. Louis is low on the totem pole when it come entrepreneurship. Why? This is not progressive.
I see this comment went completely over your head, steve. The point was… why are so many garages going up downtown when so many people tend to come into downtown on trains – especially during sporting events? I was for some parking improvements, but now it is getting ridiculous. Yes steve, one of the most progressive infrastructure projects in St. Louis - in a long time - was the MetroLink Light Rail system. I know this.
Anyway, I will always wish St. Louis the best, as it has many, many positive attributes, but I am so over the blinding support of it. The rose-colored glasses are off. Get it together.
I think your response is very emotional in nature. You are taking this way too personally. It's as if comments were said about you - when really they were not. Keep in mind that I am a St. Louisan too. Then, you call yourself dissecting my positions, but you didn't offer your own set (or list) of why St. Louis isn't seen as progressive by others. Maybe it's because you are satisfied with the state of St. Louis?
Nevertheless, I addressed the question of St. Louis' progressiveness (or the lack of it) and how I perceive it as it relates to St. Louis - not yours.
Anyway, allow me to touch on some of your statements:
You suggest because urban public schools coast-to-coast are bad, it's okay for St. Louis to have bad schools too. Just because LA, SF, DC or NYC doesn't get it right with their schools, it doesn't mean St. Louis should get it wrong too. This is the terrible status quo mentality that I have been referring. And if the problems with the SLPS are about "the students" then it goes towards my argument that socially something is awry in St. Louis.
Whether the problem is the SLPS administration, the mayor, the students, the parents, the teachers or all of them, St. Louis should keep trying to better its schools until its done right. That's PROGRESSIVENESS. Why write off the SLPS as "it’s the students" when these students are going to be living in YOUR COMMUNITY?
Further, just because there is corruption with other law enforcement agencies nationwide, it doesn't mean it's okay for the St. Louis Police Department to be corrupt. That's not very progressive in thought. It's very status quo and lazy. St. Louis needs to demand professionalism from its officers regardless of what is going on in Chicago, SF or Dallas. A progressive, professional, uncorrupt police force has progressiveness written all over it. It's trustworthy.
And steve, are you serious? Do you really think the question posed, "I wonder why?" was referencing race? See, this is what I am concerned about with regards to St. Louis. Many issues/discussions tend to be centered on race.
steve, for the record, the question was directed more towards existing institutional powerhouses – namely Washington University and St. Louis University, who have the ability to close off city streets, demolish buildings etc. In addition, those two medical schools alone bring millions upon millions of federal research dollars to St. Louis. As I perceive it, why would local leadership risk facing the wrath of these institutions – especially SLU? The reference alluded to the potential those institutions have to nix – on the Missouri side – competing law and medical schools - especially SLU. The question had nothing to do with race. (sigh)
Further, just because the state cannot afford to create a public law and medical school in the St. Louis region at this time, it doesn't mean St. Louis leadership should not pursue it in the future. If the leadership can pursue monies for bridges, highway ramps, stadiums, museums on the riverfront or a statewide bicycle race – certainly they can pursue monies geared towards enhancing the educational infrastructure of St. Louis. For the record, Lincoln University used to have a law school in St. Louis.
More photos of Lincoln Law in St. Louis
Lincoln Law information
And steve, in case you don't know, St. Louis is one of the most racially segregated cities in America.
Although segregation isn't an exact indicator of actual black/white relationships, I feel the racial relationships in St. Louis are horrific. Are there racial problems in other places? Hell yes! But it's particularly bad in St. Louis. Keep in mind I live in Houston most of the year and as backwards as Texas can be sometimes, I'll take Houston anyday but would still root for St. Louis. Friends living in other places, who happen to be from St. Louis, echo my sentiments. I have friends living in Kansas City, Atlanta, Houston, even Chicago who say they'll never move back to St. Louis.
Plus, I know educated people in St. Louis (pastors, city employees, transit workers, professionals etc.) who like/love St. Louis, but say the racial problem is a barrier. That's not very progressive. Read some of the comments on stltoday or on the forum from time-to-time.
Sorry, but I don't feel the same level of racial tension in Houston as I do in St. Louis. Maybe it's because Houston is more international and it strives to be the best whereas most of the time St. Louis seems okay with the status quo.
Also steve, I see you are a status quo guy. Which is okay with some people because it is "safe". It's what you know.
However, should St. Louis not be progressive and consider ideas such as Unigov in Indianapolis, similar combined governments, or create one tailored to local interest and advancement? Seriously, how many other cities have damn near 100 people sitting on their Boards of Aldermen/women or City Councils? Come on. St. Louis' governmental structure is a bloated bureaucratic Nightmare on Tucker @ Market Strs. It hinders progress. (Personally, I can't wait for Republicans to get elected in decent numbers at City Hall. A one party government rule is not progressive.)
In regards to the hospital system for the poor, trust me, St. Louis (the region) has the money to put together the best public hospital system in the country if they wanted it. They don't do it because it is a social dump, which blames "them" (whoever they are) for exploiting tax dollars. But when they want their stadiums they beg for stimulus money.
In addition, it is your partly your fault when you can't keep corporations downtown – especially when local corporations do not choose your CBD unless they have a gazillion dollars in incentives. That is not progressive. Downtown Clayton is clean, has a nice streetscape, and is mostly free of panhandlers, homeless and mentally-ill people. Police should not be assigned to problem areas after four people have been shot up on the westside of downtown St. Louis. It's reactive - not proactive. Get more police patrols to thwart crime etc. downtown on continuous basis - walk, bike, drive. This is not rocket science. Continue to clean up your downtown then CEO's leading local corporations might feel more compelled to relocate to downtown St. Louis versus Clayton or Chesterfield. Idea: Have a real estate summit with companies too timid to invest downtown. Sell your downtown to them when the rough edges are addressed. Hey, now that's progressive.
Regarding the homeless problem, it's St. Louis' problem – not some other city's, steve. Now to its credit, St. Louis did get creative when addressing its homeless problem in recent month – and there will always -be homeless people; however when your downtown streets and neighborhoods are more presentable maybe there will be an inclination towards more investment, which means it helps the city PROGRESS.
On other points you made:
The new highway signs are law, steve. There may be new "I-64" signs going up on the new pavement, but many of you are still going to call it "Farty" because you can't seem to get out of the past. It's the stubbornness of many St. Louisans. You keep writing it off as a "quirk", but in reality it is just plain country as hell. Not to mention the potential to confuse the hell out of visitors/travelers. Please don't ask a native for directions. W-T-F.
On the riverfront issue, maybe there are dead bodies found there because, like you, some locals could care less about the riverfront. Who cares if a visitor strolls along the riverfront from the Millennium Hotel or Four Seasons and discovers a rotting corpse with vultures and flies feeding on it? World class, right? With a world class riverfront, maybe the body dumpers would be more inclined to dump somewhere else. Again, just because bodies are dumped in the Anacostia doesn't mean it should happen on the St. Louis Mississippi Riverfront. Yeah, that's not real progressive.
On the airport comment, poverty can be a direct result of mindset. However, St. Louis is not broke nor has it ever been to my knowledge. You all are just lazy and apathetic. Did you know the voters in St. Louis City passed a $1-billion bond issue some years back for airport upgrades in the future? These funds are separate from the runway expansion.
On the issue of the grocers, (sigh) St. Louis has been a major player in the grocer business forever (I know this and get it); however, the underlying comment was not about grocers per se. The underlying suggestion was about the overall reserved/unprogressive/conservative nature of the St. Louis business community, which can be adverse to outside competition (Schnucks, Dierbergs). The grocer comment was simply a loose example. I am glad ibleedlou got it. Further, among major cities, St. Louis is low on the totem pole when it come entrepreneurship. Why? This is not progressive.
steve wrote:
Arch City wrote: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.
True. But is it not progressive for people to come downtown on trains? Wait, I thought we had a terrible mass transit system. . . . .
This list is an example of what happens when one's perceptions guides his reasoning. You start out with the assumption that St Louis is backwards, and then you start seeing it in all kinds of things that either don't in fact indicate backwardness or is no different from any other place.
I see this comment went completely over your head, steve. The point was… why are so many garages going up downtown when so many people tend to come into downtown on trains – especially during sporting events? I was for some parking improvements, but now it is getting ridiculous. Yes steve, one of the most progressive infrastructure projects in St. Louis - in a long time - was the MetroLink Light Rail system. I know this.
Anyway, I will always wish St. Louis the best, as it has many, many positive attributes, but I am so over the blinding support of it. The rose-colored glasses are off. Get it together.
I think we need to go back and define the definition of what exactly is progressive to start with.
Arch City you are the status quo. The fact that you are throwing rocks at St. Louis from Houston, TX (which is not such a great town in my humble opinion) is the epitome of the St. Louis mentality! If all these so-called progressives that leave St. Louis (because its a racist, backwards, conservative, unattractive hellhole with no potential) would actually stay and fight the good fight, maybe St. Louis would have been a different place 20 years ago.
If cleaning up the city is such an easy task that just takes some common sense then why don't you run for political office?
I'm tired of people moving 1000 miles away to some shiny, sunbelt town bashing my old, rusty hometown. Its not perfect, but this forum is for people that love St. Louis and have optimistic outlooks and constructive solutions. Hasn't St. Louie been beaten down enough? Its time to look at the brighter side and as far as I see it, the only place to go for St. Louis is up. We will most likely always be a slow growth region, but that just makes change that much sweeter when it happens.
If cleaning up the city is such an easy task that just takes some common sense then why don't you run for political office?
I'm tired of people moving 1000 miles away to some shiny, sunbelt town bashing my old, rusty hometown. Its not perfect, but this forum is for people that love St. Louis and have optimistic outlooks and constructive solutions. Hasn't St. Louie been beaten down enough? Its time to look at the brighter side and as far as I see it, the only place to go for St. Louis is up. We will most likely always be a slow growth region, but that just makes change that much sweeter when it happens.
MattnSTL wrote:I think we need to go back and define the definition of what exactly is progressive to start with.
I think it is going to depend on the individual and what they perceive as "progressive" as it pertains to St. Louis.
The basic definition is here.
Arch City wrote:I think it is going to depend on the individual and what they perceive as "progressive" as it pertains to St. Louis.
That's what I was getting at. Everyone is going to see this a little differently. So, while it's important to discuss what each of us thinks about St. Louis being progressive (if one thinks that's even important to start with), there is no need for anyone to argue about it.
MattnSTL wrote:I think we need to go back and define the definition of what exactly is progressive to start with.
Precisely.
Arch, I'm glad you calmed down from your original post.
But I think that you have completely misread my post. I didn't take it personally. Sure, I got a little emotional, but that's only because I have grown so tired of hearing the same things you've said over and over and over. People who both live here and those who don't. And I am as far from status quo as you can get. Which is why I take a proactive attitude about St. Louis. It's why I got so upset about YOUR post. Because it is the standard--ahem, status quo--attitude about St. Louis.
The point of saying "yeah, well City X also has this problem" is to rebut your assertion that those qualities are what make St. Louis, qua St. Louis, backward. When in reality, they're instances of backwardness that occur nationwide. I explicitly stated that St. Louis isn't "off the hook" because it shares problems with other cities, but you seem to suggest that St. Louis is uniquely backward because of the schools, etc.. That's simply incorrect. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you suggest that poor schools, racial divisiveness, and corruption are signs of backwardness, then you must concede that other cities you would otherwise deem progressive are, in some senses, backwards. Again, it doesn't excuse St. Louis. I just want some intellectual consistency.
Again, the Highway 40 thing as an instance of backwardness is all in your head. It is officially both Highway 40 and I64. And it's been like that for years. I really don't see this as a big deal. But whatever, you see it as country bumpkin. Fine. But I submit that you only think that because you come to the table thinking St. Louis is backwards; ipso facto, calling a stretch of road by any name other than its interstate designation is backward.
Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of it here myself. But it's not because of the many myriad problems you suggested. It's because your attitude towards and perception of those problems is all too common. It's the endless St. Louis lament that "oh, we're just the worst! Nothing will EVER change, because this is ST. LOUIS! Home of the sh**** schools, corrupt cops, and racist people!! Our downtown SUCKS. Everything SUCKS. And it will NEVER CHANGE." For years, I've been trying to counter the stereotypes through argument, persuasion, cajoling, leading by example. But it wears one down.
We will never conquer our problems when our collective civic attitude mirrors yours, Arch. We will never even begin to attempt to correct our shortcoming if all we do is kick ourselves in the b**** over and over again, and not at least look to our positive traits.
Your attitude, sir, is the status quo. Not mine. And it's a sad one.