I’m a little confused by the back in forth on crime trends. Do I have it right that St Louis crime trends (both murders and overall crime) generally mirror national trends? Or is that not correct?dbInSouthCity wrote:This is not a serious person.
Got it. The latest numbers I’ve seen show St Louis crime trends more or less mirroring broader trends. In some forms of crime we are behind the national averages in declines, in some we are ahead. It’s a similar story when comparing STL City with STL County.TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote:Yes, you are correct, though STL appears to be declining faster than national average, while peer cities like KC and Charlotte are going against the national trend.
I've said it before but I think one of the largest causes of this misalignment is that KC is extremely suburban while STL is actually quite urban. STL is denser than Dallas, for example.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/s/RoF8tAusPA
This thread exemplifies everything that is wrong with our downtown (and really our region). It is full of people saying KC is more walkable, has better transit (bc of the streetcar), cleaner, safer, more family activities, more restaurants, more nightlife, more people, more tourists - a snowball perception effect. It also is entirely commentary based on downtown - almost every comment is about DT StL stinks and DT KC is this and that.
None of it is the reality - StL has more walkable suburbs than KC does urban neighborhoods. There are more free attractions within the small city limits of StL than anywhere but DC. Our downtown has the most visited site in the state, sports teams and is no different in safety. We have a 46 mile light rail, versus the 2 mile streetcar.
Look people can have their preference in cities but to me that commentary shows the uphill battle we deal with. First, how much everyone’s perception of a city deals with downtown. People aren’t talking about Soulard, CWE, Tower Grove, Cherokee Street, even Forest Park in that thread. It is almost solely based on the downtowns - funny enough basically the two cities coming down to Power and Light > BPV. Second, we can’t even get good discourse about the things we do relatively well compared to KC, like transit and walkability. We need these downtown infrastructure projects bad because the downtown discourse about StL has just grown tiresome and people perceive the whole city poorly based on it time and time again.
I just got so frustrated reading that thread because I’ve seen similar things so much lately across social media. I’m not a StL homer either, I just don’t get the hate fest for StL and love fest for pretty much any other city that goes on amongst our own residents and outsiders (mostly ourselves).
I wish our leaders would read a thread and realize that a Chesterfield downtown is not going to bring us back to prominence - it is and always be whether our historically decided downtown area is thriving or not.
I found the amount of people claiming that KC has better public transit to be a good example of your exact points. People were praising the KC streetcar while ignoring the fact that StL has an actual rail system. And I think it’s exactly the difference you point to - the KC streetcar is essentially a bar hop and event trolley that goes for two miles by their attractions used primarily by tourists and subrubanites and the StL metrolink serves neighborhoods across all demographic and income lines throughout the region for people to actually get to and from work every day. It is actually asinine to even suggest KC has more public transit but that claim is tenfold in that thread. Metrolink is just something that many people act like doesn’t exist because it is too urban and associated with crime so they never use it.Auggie wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025I've said it before but I think one of the largest causes of this misalignment is that KC is extremely suburban while STL is actually quite urban. STL is denser than Dallas, for example.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/s/RoF8tAusPA
This thread exemplifies everything that is wrong with our downtown (and really our region). It is full of people saying KC is more walkable, has better transit (bc of the streetcar), cleaner, safer, more family activities, more restaurants, more nightlife, more people, more tourists - a snowball perception effect. It also is entirely commentary based on downtown - almost every comment is about DT StL stinks and DT KC is this and that.
None of it is the reality - StL has more walkable suburbs than KC does urban neighborhoods. There are more free attractions within the small city limits of StL than anywhere but DC. Our downtown has the most visited site in the state, sports teams and is no different in safety. We have a 46 mile light rail, versus the 2 mile streetcar.
Look people can have their preference in cities but to me that commentary shows the uphill battle we deal with. First, how much everyone’s perception of a city deals with downtown. People aren’t talking about Soulard, CWE, Tower Grove, Cherokee Street, even Forest Park in that thread. It is almost solely based on the downtowns - funny enough basically the two cities coming down to Power and Light > BPV. Second, we can’t even get good discourse about the things we do relatively well compared to KC, like transit and walkability. We need these downtown infrastructure projects bad because the downtown discourse about StL has just grown tiresome and people perceive the whole city poorly based on it time and time again.
I just got so frustrated reading that thread because I’ve seen similar things so much lately across social media. I’m not a StL homer either, I just don’t get the hate fest for StL and love fest for pretty much any other city that goes on amongst our own residents and outsiders (mostly ourselves).
I wish our leaders would read a thread and realize that a Chesterfield downtown is not going to bring us back to prominence - it is and always be whether our historically decided downtown area is thriving or not.
Americans are overwhelmingly suburban creatures, and when your city is only 10% of the population of the mostly suburbs metro, they tend to start disliking the urban areas, aka the city. KC is mostly suburbs and a much larger % of the metro population. That alone helps offset the issue.
Second, you mention that the concensus is P+L > BPV. And that's noteworthy because both are essentially suburban safe havens where scared people can go and feel safe. They don't care about any of our great neighborhoods because according to then they're all dangerous.
Finally, as with quite literally everything in this ***** country, racism and stupidity. Suburbs exist largely because of 1950s racism. They literally plowed highways through dense, minority neighborhoods to accommodate whites who got a government subsidized house out in Narnia. Now today, "urban" is associated with crime and crime is associated with black people. Hence why Metro is supposedly so dangerous when it's violent crime rate is actually lower than St. Charles. Then you add in the stupidity and miseducation where places like St. Charles think they're so great because they have 410,000 people, but their GDP/capita is less than half of St. Louis City's. Places like STL City, Clayton, Maplewood, etc are actively subsidizing places like Chesterfield, Wildwood, St. Charles, Jefferson County, etc, but almost no one recognizes that fact.
So for the foreseeable future, STL is just in a screwed place where America treats it (along with literally every other major urban city) like sh*t while these are the places that actually generate revenue to subsidize suburbia.
I mean, there are people out there who actually think Portland, Oregon was burned down in 2020 and think places like Seattle, Portland, Chicago are hell holes. There's not a lot STL can do.
And you're seeing it now....STL crime is down, GDP is up (outpacing the state), financial state is stable at worst, and yet you still have STL Twitter (suburban a**holes) continuously insisting that the city is worse than it's ever been.
The funniest part is that MetroLink was actually built largely FOR the suburban person, but they just kept going away and now MetroLink is seen as urban.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025I found the amount of people claiming that KC has better public transit to be a good example of your exact points. People were praising the KC streetcar while ignoring the fact that StL has an actual rail system. And I think it’s exactly the difference you point to - the KC streetcar is essentially a bar hop and event trolley that goes for two miles by their attractions used primarily by tourists and subrubanites and the StL metrolink serves neighborhoods across all demographic and income lines throughout the region for people to actually get to and from work every day. It is actually asinine to even suggest KC has more public transit but that claim is tenfold in that thread. Metrolink is just something that many people act like doesn’t exist because it is too urban and associated with crime so they never use it.Auggie wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025I've said it before but I think one of the largest causes of this misalignment is that KC is extremely suburban while STL is actually quite urban. STL is denser than Dallas, for example.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/s/RoF8tAusPA
This thread exemplifies everything that is wrong with our downtown (and really our region). It is full of people saying KC is more walkable, has better transit (bc of the streetcar), cleaner, safer, more family activities, more restaurants, more nightlife, more people, more tourists - a snowball perception effect. It also is entirely commentary based on downtown - almost every comment is about DT StL stinks and DT KC is this and that.
None of it is the reality - StL has more walkable suburbs than KC does urban neighborhoods. There are more free attractions within the small city limits of StL than anywhere but DC. Our downtown has the most visited site in the state, sports teams and is no different in safety. We have a 46 mile light rail, versus the 2 mile streetcar.
Look people can have their preference in cities but to me that commentary shows the uphill battle we deal with. First, how much everyone’s perception of a city deals with downtown. People aren’t talking about Soulard, CWE, Tower Grove, Cherokee Street, even Forest Park in that thread. It is almost solely based on the downtowns - funny enough basically the two cities coming down to Power and Light > BPV. Second, we can’t even get good discourse about the things we do relatively well compared to KC, like transit and walkability. We need these downtown infrastructure projects bad because the downtown discourse about StL has just grown tiresome and people perceive the whole city poorly based on it time and time again.
I just got so frustrated reading that thread because I’ve seen similar things so much lately across social media. I’m not a StL homer either, I just don’t get the hate fest for StL and love fest for pretty much any other city that goes on amongst our own residents and outsiders (mostly ourselves).
I wish our leaders would read a thread and realize that a Chesterfield downtown is not going to bring us back to prominence - it is and always be whether our historically decided downtown area is thriving or not.
Americans are overwhelmingly suburban creatures, and when your city is only 10% of the population of the mostly suburbs metro, they tend to start disliking the urban areas, aka the city. KC is mostly suburbs and a much larger % of the metro population. That alone helps offset the issue.
Second, you mention that the concensus is P+L > BPV. And that's noteworthy because both are essentially suburban safe havens where scared people can go and feel safe. They don't care about any of our great neighborhoods because according to then they're all dangerous.
Finally, as with quite literally everything in this ***** country, racism and stupidity. Suburbs exist largely because of 1950s racism. They literally plowed highways through dense, minority neighborhoods to accommodate whites who got a government subsidized house out in Narnia. Now today, "urban" is associated with crime and crime is associated with black people. Hence why Metro is supposedly so dangerous when it's violent crime rate is actually lower than St. Charles. Then you add in the stupidity and miseducation where places like St. Charles think they're so great because they have 410,000 people, but their GDP/capita is less than half of St. Louis City's. Places like STL City, Clayton, Maplewood, etc are actively subsidizing places like Chesterfield, Wildwood, St. Charles, Jefferson County, etc, but almost no one recognizes that fact.
So for the foreseeable future, STL is just in a screwed place where America treats it (along with literally every other major urban city) like sh*t while these are the places that actually generate revenue to subsidize suburbia.
I mean, there are people out there who actually think Portland, Oregon was burned down in 2020 and think places like Seattle, Portland, Chicago are hell holes. There's not a lot STL can do.
And you're seeing it now....STL crime is down, GDP is up (outpacing the state), financial state is stable at worst, and yet you still have STL Twitter (suburban a**holes) continuously insisting that the city is worse than it's ever been.
this makes lot of sense. am one of the very few who strongly supports public transit.Auggie wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025The funniest part is that MetroLink was actually built largely FOR the suburban person, but they just kept going away and now MetroLink is seen as urban.
And the Green Line supposedly "goes nowhere". Why is that? Because it doesn't go to anywhere suburbanites would want to go. So obviously it must be a bad idea.
No reason why we can’t invest in Fairground Park to make it at least a regional destination. Give it some amenity that Forest Park and Tower Grove don’t have and beautify the heck out of it. And you hope that the line spurs development and stabilization in those north side neighborhoods, especially with even the slightest expansion phase 2 west on natural bridge. Maybe there can be some form of a business district really come about at MLK, St. Louis Ave or Natural Bridge. I think there could be more well-rounded alignments but if we committed to expansion and continued to work in building it out, it will be very useful.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025The northern leg of the green line doesn’t go anywhere useful. It goes where we with people lived not where they actually live. But placing it next to NGA is important so this is what we get.
If you build it, they will come is a terrible justification for spending public dollars.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025No reason why we can’t invest in Fairground Park to make it at least a regional destination. Give it some amenity that Forest Park and Tower Grove don’t have and beautify the heck out of it. And you hope that the line spurs development and stabilization in those north side neighborhoods, especially with even the slightest expansion phase 2 west on natural bridge. Maybe there can be some form of a business district really come about at MLK, St. Louis Ave or Natural Bridge. I think there could be more well-rounded alignments but if we committed to expansion and continued to work in building it out, it will be very useful.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025The northern leg of the green line doesn’t go anywhere useful. It goes where we with people lived not where they actually live. But placing it next to NGA is important so this is what we get.
Yeah I tend to agree with JaneJacobsGhost here. It would be great if we build it and they come. But in a city with population decline rather than growth, I tend to think that's more wishful thinking when business districts with far more stability like Cherokee are still, well, kind of treading water. Not that there isn't success, but business districts and neighborhoods with far more stable assets are still far from fully invested in and probably will remain much safer for investors than areas around the green line in the northside for a long time to come.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025If you build it, they will come is a terrible justification for spending public dollars.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025No reason why we can’t invest in Fairground Park to make it at least a regional destination. Give it some amenity that Forest Park and Tower Grove don’t have and beautify the heck out of it. And you hope that the line spurs development and stabilization in those north side neighborhoods, especially with even the slightest expansion phase 2 west on natural bridge. Maybe there can be some form of a business district really come about at MLK, St. Louis Ave or Natural Bridge. I think there could be more well-rounded alignments but if we committed to expansion and continued to work in building it out, it will be very useful.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025The northern leg of the green line doesn’t go anywhere useful. It goes where we with people lived not where they actually live. But placing it next to NGA is important so this is what we get.
And If no one rides the northern leg (which they won’t because it doesn’t go anywhere people live or work) you will never secure funding for an expansion.
If the goal was to serve poc in under invested communities, the money spent on the northern leg of the green line would be much better used extending the south bound line all the way to Patch or building the northbound line from the CWE on Kingshighway
I agree it’s not the optimal alignment especially in its phase 1 shape. Dutch town would very much benefit from the line and has the density to support it. Never understood why not take it to I-55 instead of just to Chippewa, considering the jump in ridership and the demographics they are looking for. It doesn’t even require a turn - it’s right there. I also think the strict Jefferson alignment doesn’t do as much for downtown as I would like to see and that we need. Gravois to up Tucker or 14th then up 13/Florissant to O’Fallon would have higher ridership and impact, still serve NGA and fit the existing system better in my opinion.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025If you build it, they will come is a terrible justification for spending public dollars.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025No reason why we can’t invest in Fairground Park to make it at least a regional destination. Give it some amenity that Forest Park and Tower Grove don’t have and beautify the heck out of it. And you hope that the line spurs development and stabilization in those north side neighborhoods, especially with even the slightest expansion phase 2 west on natural bridge. Maybe there can be some form of a business district really come about at MLK, St. Louis Ave or Natural Bridge. I think there could be more well-rounded alignments but if we committed to expansion and continued to work in building it out, it will be very useful.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025The northern leg of the green line doesn’t go anywhere useful. It goes where we with people lived not where they actually live. But placing it next to NGA is important so this is what we get.
And If no one rides the northern leg (which they won’t because it doesn’t go anywhere people live or work) you will never secure funding for an expansion.
If the goal was to serve poc in under invested communities, the money spent on the northern leg of the green line would be much better used extending the south bound line all the way to Patch or building the northbound line from the CWE on Kingshighway
The idea behind it was 1) For an extension into the County and 2) The hope would be that the north side neighborhoods would be revitalized with TOD.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025The northern leg of the green line doesn’t go anywhere useful. It goes where we wish people lived not where they actually live. But placing it next to NGA is important so this is what we get.
There is not a densely populated neighborhood in the northbound direction of the green line until O’fallon or Penrose.
Every time transit is built, development happens around it. Idek where you're getting the idea that that's not how it works. It's been proven time and time again that that is how it works.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025If you build it, they will come is a terrible justification for spending public dollars.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025No reason why we can’t invest in Fairground Park to make it at least a regional destination. Give it some amenity that Forest Park and Tower Grove don’t have and beautify the heck out of it. And you hope that the line spurs development and stabilization in those north side neighborhoods, especially with even the slightest expansion phase 2 west on natural bridge. Maybe there can be some form of a business district really come about at MLK, St. Louis Ave or Natural Bridge. I think there could be more well-rounded alignments but if we committed to expansion and continued to work in building it out, it will be very useful.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025The northern leg of the green line doesn’t go anywhere useful. It goes where we with people lived not where they actually live. But placing it next to NGA is important so this is what we get.
And If no one rides the northern leg (which they won’t because it doesn’t go anywhere people live or work) you will never secure funding for an expansion.
If the goal was to serve poc in under invested communities, the money spent on the northern leg of the green line would be much better used extending the south bound line all the way to Patch or building the northbound line from the CWE on Kingshighway
Neighborhoods served by the existing MetroLink have grown by around 40% since 2000 while the city as a whole has shrunk by almost 14%.brianadler6545 wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025Yeah I tend to agree with JaneJacobsGhost here. It would be great if we build it and they come. But in a city with population decline rather than growth, I tend to think that's more wishful thinking when business districts with far more stability like Cherokee are still, well, kind of treading water. Not that there isn't success, but business districts and neighborhoods with far more stable assets are still far from fully invested in and probably will remain much safer for investors than areas around the green line in the northside for a long time to come.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025If you build it, they will come is a terrible justification for spending public dollars.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025
No reason why we can’t invest in Fairground Park to make it at least a regional destination. Give it some amenity that Forest Park and Tower Grove don’t have and beautify the heck out of it. And you hope that the line spurs development and stabilization in those north side neighborhoods, especially with even the slightest expansion phase 2 west on natural bridge. Maybe there can be some form of a business district really come about at MLK, St. Louis Ave or Natural Bridge. I think there could be more well-rounded alignments but if we committed to expansion and continued to work in building it out, it will be very useful.
And If no one rides the northern leg (which they won’t because it doesn’t go anywhere people live or work) you will never secure funding for an expansion.
If the goal was to serve poc in under invested communities, the money spent on the northern leg of the green line would be much better used extending the south bound line all the way to Patch or building the northbound line from the CWE on Kingshighway
I hope I'm wrong, but I am honestly a good bit worried about low ridership and low investment on the green line in general. I would prefer it happen at this point rather than not happen, but I just don't think this is us putting our best foot forward on transit capital improvements.
Great so why not build it where black folks actually live and not out in some ***** urban prairie in JeffVanderLou?Auggie wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025Every time transit is built, development happens around it. Idek where you're getting the idea that that's not how it works. It's been proven time and time again that that is how it works.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025If you build it, they will come is a terrible justification for spending public dollars.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025
No reason why we can’t invest in Fairground Park to make it at least a regional destination. Give it some amenity that Forest Park and Tower Grove don’t have and beautify the heck out of it. And you hope that the line spurs development and stabilization in those north side neighborhoods, especially with even the slightest expansion phase 2 west on natural bridge. Maybe there can be some form of a business district really come about at MLK, St. Louis Ave or Natural Bridge. I think there could be more well-rounded alignments but if we committed to expansion and continued to work in building it out, it will be very useful.
And If no one rides the northern leg (which they won’t because it doesn’t go anywhere people live or work) you will never secure funding for an expansion.
If the goal was to serve poc in under invested communities, the money spent on the northern leg of the green line would be much better used extending the south bound line all the way to Patch or building the northbound line from the CWE on Kingshighway
The Metrolink wasn’t built through urban prairies in north city.Auggie wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025Neighborhoods served by the existing MetroLink have grown by around 40% since 2000 while the city as a whole has shrunk by almost 14%.brianadler6545 wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025Yeah I tend to agree with JaneJacobsGhost here. It would be great if we build it and they come. But in a city with population decline rather than growth, I tend to think that's more wishful thinking when business districts with far more stability like Cherokee are still, well, kind of treading water. Not that there isn't success, but business districts and neighborhoods with far more stable assets are still far from fully invested in and probably will remain much safer for investors than areas around the green line in the northside for a long time to come.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2025
If you build it, they will come is a terrible justification for spending public dollars.
And If no one rides the northern leg (which they won’t because it doesn’t go anywhere people live or work) you will never secure funding for an expansion.
If the goal was to serve poc in under invested communities, the money spent on the northern leg of the green line would be much better used extending the south bound line all the way to Patch or building the northbound line from the CWE on Kingshighway
I hope I'm wrong, but I am honestly a good bit worried about low ridership and low investment on the green line in general. I would prefer it happen at this point rather than not happen, but I just don't think this is us putting our best foot forward on transit capital improvements.
