Tapatalk

"Camera Infrastructure"

"Camera Infrastructure"

1,299
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,299

PostNov 07, 2013#1

Someone mentioned "camera infrastructure" as one of the cool new things coming to the riverfront. I wondered what that is. Why would "camera infrastructure" be part of the draw to bring more visitors to the Riverfront.

According to a Google search, it appears "camera infrastructure" is a form of stepped up security. Great.

A drawing card to attract more visitors to the riverfront is stepped up security. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't exactly call that a drawing card.

If I am fearful for my personal safety, I'm not going to decide to go to a sketchy area because there are now security cameras.

Security cameras might help to improve already popular destinations, like the CWE and Laclede's Landing.

But to turn a dead area into a live one, we're offering stepped up security?

What are we now? Everything is run through the lens of personal safety, cop vision, and security? And appealing to the people that would be comforted by such measures is our target demographic for enlivening the riverfront?

Excuse me while I reach for the air sickness bag!

2,940
Life MemberLife Member
2,940

PostNov 08, 2013#2

I would. I'm glad to hear the Arch, a national monument, is getting a security upgrade beyond the bollards. This is not only for the interests of safeguarding our nation's monuments but also to alleviate the problems, and perceptions of problems, of crime in the City, a very real issue we mustn't dismiss especially when looking to attract more tourists to the JNEM and the City. Plus, this new system should be a solid addition to the StLPD's abilities to police Downtown. The JNEM is already well-monitored by cameras within the constraints of the Arch's relatively antiquated electronics infrastructure; I'm glad to hear this is getting the attention needed for a very necessary upgrade.

NN: Where did you hear that this was to be a "cool new thing" coming to the Arch Grounds? I haven't seen that on this thread yet. I also haven't heard of this being mentioned before as a "cool" addition, only as a necessary amenity to our national security concerns.

1,299
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,299

PostNov 11, 2013#3

It's somewhere in the "Arch Project HIts a Snag" thread.

Security cameras don't make me feel any better. They just move crime someplace else. If they do anything. Maybe they help solve crimes, but I doubt they're much of a deterrent.

4,553
Life MemberLife Member
4,553

PostNov 11, 2013#4

Having cameras helps solve crimes, solving crimes helps punish criminals, punishing criminals has a deterrent effect. Can't hurt to have them there.

1,190
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,190

PostNov 11, 2013#5

Part of the design for LKS Blvd includes installation of fiber optic cable the length of most of the project. The existing cameras would be connected. And if the SLDC can win a grant they've applied for, they would install more cameras north of Eads Bridge and south of Poplar.

The existing cameras have been pretty successful from what I've been told by the SLDC.

512
Senior MemberSenior Member
512

PostNov 11, 2013#6

Leonor K. Sullivan has a very real crime problem. Be it drag races (anybody remember the "shadow driver" a year or two back who surfed his car into the PSB legs?), violence or drug use/sale, after the park closes the Riverfront is an interesting scene, to say the least.

The cameras are necessary (and appreciated!) going forward to make a safer, more accessible downtown Riverfront. If you remember, the originally-selected City+Arch+River plan had LKS converted to a car-free area between Poplar and the Eads. That would have been horrible, of course, but it was a first response to an existing issue.

1
New MemberNew Member
1

PostNov 12, 2013#7

Having cameras helps solve crimes, solving crimes helps punish criminals, punishing criminals has a deterrent effect. Can't hurt to have them there.