Interesting article. Controversial or Not?



link 1: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... _black.php

link 2: http://www.newgeography.com/content/001 ... white-city

interesting article indeed. I wouldn't call it controversial though. More so fuzzy in focus.



St. Louis' starting point is behind portland austin minny etc. We don't have the bare essentials.



St. Louis' starting point is schools crime unemployment and a fragmented region.



Why haven't these problems been addressed? That's where you'll find your controversy.



Why are some people against a merger with the city? They don't want their taxes going to poor blacks in high crime areas. Why wasn't Prop M passed? Because some people don't want to fund transit for 'others'.



It isn't white flight anymore its simply black spite. I was at live on the levee for the lupe fiasco concert and overheard a white guy say "there's too many black kids here". Its spite -- still I'd like to think most of its fringe.



What I'd like to see is St. Louis rise to be a more progressive city on the backs of progressive blacks. No one has the ears of our youth. People want to legislate harsher penalties for crimes but no ones telling the youth whats in it for them if St Louis were virtually crime free.



Alderwoman Triplett and a few Grandmas marching with signs isn't enough. We need to sit our youth down and include them in our goals.



I wonder what kind of reaction McKee would get from the senior class at Vashon high school? How would he talk to them?



Why aren't any of the recent Metro workshops at high schools? Most people born after 1981 want to live in dense areas connected by public transit.

Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox are heavily involved in that site.

DeBaliviere wrote:Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox are heavily involved in that site.

While both gentlemen are giant douchebags, the site does often have interesting and challenging articles posted. I think it's a worthwhile site, even if I roll my eyes when I see one of their names in the byline.

JMStokes wrote:

DeBaliviere wrote:Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox are heavily involved in that site.

While both gentlemen are giant douchebags, the site does often have interesting and challenging articles posted. I think it's a worthwhile site, even if I roll my eyes when I see one of their names in the byline.

I agree. Although the author's Houston/Atlanta/Dallas boner at the end is consistent with Kotkin's ideology.

How can STL be considered progressive when its' economy isn't growing? I live in the Twin Cities now and I'm here because we followed the jobs, not because I wanted to move here. Is it more progressive...sure. Why? Because the influx of educated people following the job market aren't hamstrung by a stale economy and the things that go along with it. I truly believe the natives (locals) here are rather yokel, much more than I'd consider them progressive, but with inirtia from the late 80's economy the collective mindset continues to progress while in STL we continue to discuss white flight.

St. Louis is still recovering from the past exodus of white and black flight from the inner core. I think St. Louis, with its neighborhoods and architecture could leap frog cites such as Portland, Minneapolis, Denver, if it was actually set up to succeed. Our building/housing stock is second to few cities.

-open more "international" schools in the city. Make it a requirement for them to be a percentage of foregin born to local, or some kind of mixed student body. No one is going to let their child be the Guinea pig in the lower income schools that currently exist. (excluding magnets).

-legalize gay marriage in the city. I think it was STL, NY and San Fran that first recognized, legally, same sex partners.. the city IS progressive. I hate how it gets lumped in with surrounding ignorant counties.

-push for more bikeways, etc. showers in buildings for bikers, etc.

-get rid of 28 aldermen. a system that is MADE UP TO FAIL..no fast growing city has such an arcane system.

St. Louis loses out a lot because we're so suburban oriented. Why companies like Savis, Maritz,Rawlings, Edward Jones, Scottrade think it's cool to be in suburban office parks off a highway, I have NO IDEA. sure this exists in lots of cities, but younger generations HATE this lifestyle. Everyone under 35 has seen the movie Office Space and doesn't want to live/work like that. Why these companies won't consider Cupples or new towers downtown, I have no idea. makes me think the smart people move to the "hip" cities, and we're stuck with the "xurbs" people who think working in a west county office park is cool...

JCity wrote:
-open more "international" schools in the city. Make it a requirement for them to be a percentage of foregin born to local, or some kind of mixed student body. No one is going to let their child be the Guinea pig in the lower income schools that currently exist. (excluding magnets).

Has this worked anywhere before? how big are these "international" schools going to be? I can't imagine a very large student body to begin with. Also what would set these apart from being another guinea pig experiment?



Results are what matter. Fix the city public schools.

What are the qualitative and quantitative metrics for being deemed a, "progressive city?" When I think of the word 'progressive' -- I think of consistent, left-leaning stances in key political issues. But the writer never seems to mention that. What a shame.



Oh, and correlation does not imply causation.



I think my IQ just dropped 10 points from reading this article.

innov8ion wrote:What are the qualitative and quantitative metrics for being deemed a, "progressive city?" When I think of the word 'progressive' -- I think of consistent, left-leaning stances in key political issues. But the writer never seems to mention that. What a shame.



Oh, and correlation does not imply causation.



I think my IQ just dropped 10 points from reading this article.

I was not a fan either.

^ Yeah, someone please let us know when the authors figure out what the word, "progressive" means.

DeBaliviere wrote:

innov8ion wrote:What are the qualitative and quantitative metrics for being deemed a, "progressive city?" When I think of the word 'progressive' -- I think of consistent, left-leaning stances in key political issues. But the writer never seems to mention that. What a shame.



Oh, and correlation does not imply causation.



I think my IQ just dropped 10 points from reading this article.

I was not a fan either.

Same here.



Innov8ion, the lack of a definition for what is deemed progressive in this article irritates me as well.

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?!

There is a consistent pattern to the economic death spiral in St. Louis that is now decades and decades old. When the economy is good we sit on our hands (or pocketbooks) and choose not to do things. When the economy is bad, we can't do things for want of capital. The result is always the same: nothing gets done.



Think of what downtown redevelopment would look like if St. Louis would have gotten in the game when other cities did and there was money in the market. Instead, we were years late and in the middle of the effort when the money went away. You can't turn the oven off in the middle of baking the cake and turn it on later.



Apply this same pattern to -- you pick it -- Dunkin' Donuts, Baskin-Robbins. Grand Center, Kiel Opera House, riverfront redevelopment, etc., etc.

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?!

Grover wrote:I think the author explained what a "progressive" city well enough, if not explicitly.

Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as a paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system, excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy.

So, to the groups (media, academia and planners) who worry themselves with such labels, the most progressive (read: safe, expensive, people on bikes, etc.) cities are well agreed upon. If you are still seeking a definition you can consider what the cities listed have in common. While cities in general tend to be liberal or politically "progressive," that's not what's really being discussed here.



I think the author is really flailing in an attempt to directly link race and "progressive" cities. What I took from the article was that homogeneity can help pass legislation. It's easier to agree on policy.



The point, according to me, is that others will never see a place like St. Louis as "progressive" because we are not proactive policy actors. What we do typically follows policy in other cities and is rarely implemented to affect the entire region. 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.

I think you've probably explained it better than the author could have done.

Arch_Genesis wrote:

JCity wrote:
-open more "international" schools in the city. Make it a requirement for them to be a percentage of foregin born to local, or some kind of mixed student body. No one is going to let their child be the Guinea pig in the lower income schools that currently exist. (excluding magnets).

Has this worked anywhere before? how big are these "international" schools going to be? I can't imagine a very large student body to begin with. Also what would set these apart from being another guinea pig experiment?



Results are what matter. Fix the city public schools.

Amen.



This is *JMHO* but sometimes posters on this forum get so "anti-racism" that it's almost racist itself. A *requirement* that students be foreign-born?



Yes, immigration is healthy and necessary for our city's growth. But don't for a minute assume that all immigrants are going to live in the city. I work in IT in near-West County and about half of my coworkers are "international" (mostly well-educated Asians.)



I would bet that most of them (can't say 100%, because I do not know for ALL of them) live in West County somewhere and send their kids to either Parkway or Rockwood or to one of the private secular schools.



Again, my statistical sample includes just my international neighbors and coworkers, but from what I understand, when they moved here living in the City proper simply wasn't even a consideration, based on the current state and reputation (fair or not) of the schools, as well as other "lifestyle" factors.

^I'll agree that setting up essentially segregated schools for immigrant communities could be a way to boost population but that doesn't solve the problems of the city schools.



Sure you'll increase the tax base and that doesn't hurt but it doesn't directly address the current problem at hand. We have underachieving city schools. If we had wonderful city schools we wouldn't have to hypothesize about immigrant schools.



As for how to fix the city schools? I think Kelvin Adams is working on it and I've liked some of his ideas and hope they work. Only time will tell though.



http://stlamerican.com/articles/2009/10 ... news02.txt



Also your argument for immigrant/international schools seems to assume that they'll be up to standards and provide a quality education.



http://cppsofseattle.uservoice.com/page ... ic-schools Another site with ideas -- not st. louis but perhaps applicable

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.