NY Times: Hopes for a Renaissance After Exodus in St. Louis
NY Times: Hopes for a Renaissance After Exodus in St. Louis
- 11K
- 8,922
Damn! That website is so annoying. Every click of a word results in a pop up.
- 2,005
Some neighborhoods, like Lafayette Park, are even thriving.
ahem.. Lafayette Square?
not a bad article overall. It balances the negatives with positives at least.
That was such a downer article. "Hopes for a renaissance"
Well, a renaissance is well underway in St. Louis. St. Louis City is not an Atlanta or Houston in terms of new development, but St. Louis City is definitely experiencing its greatest expansion in decades.
Also, they mentioned the ticket scalping scandal by St. Louis Police, but police misconduct is a problem in healthier cities as well. I don't see how relevant mentioning that was. And can someone tell me where there's a neighborhood called Lafayette Park in St. Louis?
Last, can we please - please - please get past the "St. Louis was the 4th largest city in blah, blah, blah" crap. I get tired of reading that when reporters - even local ones - discuss St. Louis. Many (core) cities are no longer ranked as high as they were back in the early 20th century. Many (core) cities are no longer larger than they once were back in the early 20th century.
Well, a renaissance is well underway in St. Louis. St. Louis City is not an Atlanta or Houston in terms of new development, but St. Louis City is definitely experiencing its greatest expansion in decades.
Also, they mentioned the ticket scalping scandal by St. Louis Police, but police misconduct is a problem in healthier cities as well. I don't see how relevant mentioning that was. And can someone tell me where there's a neighborhood called Lafayette Park in St. Louis?
Last, can we please - please - please get past the "St. Louis was the 4th largest city in blah, blah, blah" crap. I get tired of reading that when reporters - even local ones - discuss St. Louis. Many (core) cities are no longer ranked as high as they were back in the early 20th century. Many (core) cities are no longer larger than they once were back in the early 20th century.
Arch City - you nailed it. There is seems to be a formula used when writing about St. Louis. Lazy.
- 6,775
Expat wrote:Arch City - you nailed it. There is seems to be a formula used when writing about St. Louis. Lazy.
But what part of it isn't true?
What comes around goes around...
The Final Resident Just Left Phoenix
4/17/2061 Phoenix, AZ - Starbuck St. John-Paul, 56, has reluctantly "turned off the lights" as he left Phoenix early Monday morning for the more temperate conditions of Seattle, Washington. As the last known resident of Phoenix, located in the largely unpopulated southern region of the United States of North America, Starbuck lived in total isolation in 24 hour air conditioned surroundings for the last 6 years.
"I enjoyed the peace and quite, but it's gotten to where I can't get supplies delivered here," Starbuck said from a phone in his daughter's home in Seattle. "I used to enjoy the heat that global warming brought, but once it started gettinging into the 130's in the winter even I couldn't take much more than an hour of it at a time."
As hard as it is to believe now, Phoenix was once considered a boom town with double digit percentage increases in population for 3 consecutive decades in the early part of the 21st century. The irony being that people were moving there from Northern climates for the warmer weather that Arizona offered at the time. The current scorched Earth conditions throughout Arizona, New Mexico and Texas make it difficult to believe that these areas were once considered likely places for business and industry to relocate.
"Phoenix just isn't what it once was." Starbuck said, "When I was a kid it was the hotspot in the country. It had the 4th largest metropolitan area in all of North America. Everyone wanted to live here. Now it's a hotspot of a different sort I guess."
Starbuck believes there are still residents of Phoenix. Mostly mutant he suggested, but he said that he will challenge the US census bureau numbers to fight for the mutant population living in the abandoned downtown. "They deserve to be counted. The idea that I'm the last resident, just because I'm the last human, is ridiculous. Those other humanoids shouldn't be forgotten."
The Final Resident Just Left Phoenix
4/17/2061 Phoenix, AZ - Starbuck St. John-Paul, 56, has reluctantly "turned off the lights" as he left Phoenix early Monday morning for the more temperate conditions of Seattle, Washington. As the last known resident of Phoenix, located in the largely unpopulated southern region of the United States of North America, Starbuck lived in total isolation in 24 hour air conditioned surroundings for the last 6 years.
"I enjoyed the peace and quite, but it's gotten to where I can't get supplies delivered here," Starbuck said from a phone in his daughter's home in Seattle. "I used to enjoy the heat that global warming brought, but once it started gettinging into the 130's in the winter even I couldn't take much more than an hour of it at a time."
As hard as it is to believe now, Phoenix was once considered a boom town with double digit percentage increases in population for 3 consecutive decades in the early part of the 21st century. The irony being that people were moving there from Northern climates for the warmer weather that Arizona offered at the time. The current scorched Earth conditions throughout Arizona, New Mexico and Texas make it difficult to believe that these areas were once considered likely places for business and industry to relocate.
"Phoenix just isn't what it once was." Starbuck said, "When I was a kid it was the hotspot in the country. It had the 4th largest metropolitan area in all of North America. Everyone wanted to live here. Now it's a hotspot of a different sort I guess."
Starbuck believes there are still residents of Phoenix. Mostly mutant he suggested, but he said that he will challenge the US census bureau numbers to fight for the mutant population living in the abandoned downtown. "They deserve to be counted. The idea that I'm the last resident, just because I'm the last human, is ridiculous. Those other humanoids shouldn't be forgotten."
- 11K
On a serious note - IF residents of Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. were actually paying what it costs to supply water/power/food/etc. to their city it would be more cost prohibitive to live there. At some point this issue will come home to roost.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Expat wrote:Arch City - you nailed it. There is seems to be a formula used when writing about St. Louis. Lazy.
But what part of it isn't true?
I didn't say it was dishonest. I said it was lazy. It isn't news. Why not do a little digging and write an article about St. Louis that hasn't been recycled countless times.
Grover wrote:
On a serious note - IF residents of Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. were actually paying what it costs to supply water/power/food/etc. to their city it would be more cost prohibitive to live there. At some point this issue will come home to roost.
True, it is just a matter of time.
- 11K
^ Of course there are issues everywhere - at some point we will have to pay to rebuild our 100+ year-old sewers. Chicago is shutting down parts of the L for repairs that will likely take years. As a society we haven't maintained necessary infrastructure - we've simply moved. As things deteriorate in the 1950's suburbs, people leave instead of paying what it costs to maintain a community. When 190- brick homes began to need more than superficial maintanence people moved on. When 60-year-old wearhouses became expensive to maintain they were increasingly abandoned. The cyclical nature of the issue is easy to see, but because we're all free to live where we want (please don't turn this into a poverty or individual freedom rant), there's no easy solution.
^ There is a new MSD proposal to work a lot of sewer issues. I think the sewer rates will increase by 60% over 6 years if memory serves correctly. Here's the big report.: http://mkasmtp1.stlmsd.com/portal/page/ ... teProp.pdf
Not necessarily untruths, but what city doesn't have hiccups? Name one. What urban school district in America isn't having problems? St. Louis is far from utopia, but I feel that St. Louis sometimes gets slammed more when some of the same problems exist in other cities.
Warning.......rant ahead.
I personally think that some people find it hard to accept that St. Louis - which has been the source of so much negative press over the years - is in the midst of a renaissance because they still are able to see signs from that past. It's kind of like they have always had "low expectations" of the city so even though a whopping 62 buildings have been reno'ed downtown since 1998-99, and new ones are proposed and u/c, there is still this doubt. After all, it is St. Louis.
The title of the article is a downer. I think what is happening can be characterized as a renaissance. There have been billions spent over the last five years alone - infrastructure, commercial, residential, medical, office, schools, libraries, retail, parks, arts, sporting venues etc. etc. As City Hall says, "critical mass". And while I don't ever see St. Louis with 850,000 people again, quality (not quantity) is what matters most. I am personally impressed with the rate of new development and rehabs in the city. I am impressed with the transforming downtown especially - particularly the western edge. Most people have no clue how long that area was desolate, so to see the level of activity there is more than encouraging.
While some average citizens who live in the St. Louis area might not appreciate the visual and physical changes as much as expatriates who visit - a lot times from bigger "can do" cities - at one time St. Louis was a dump to visit. Not anymore. While there are problems, expats who visit can appreciate the pace of the changes. It's been rapid. Socially, it appears to be changing as well.
Sure there's always more that can be done - especially for a city core like St. Louis' that has seen so much depopulation, decay, and demolition over the years. Parts of North St. Louis/Central City actually used to look worse than they do now with decaying structures more prevalent. But the downturn didn't happen overnight so a bright and sparkly city is not going to happen overnight, yet the pace of redevelopment, to me, has been beyond remarkable.
It seems to me that despite so much development, there is still this BUT that follows. I guess BUTS are necessary because you can't allow complacency or grandiosity to set in, but I wish some of these articles would - and a few have - give credit where credit is due. St. Louis is in the midst of a serious turnaround. To characterize it any less, does a disservice to the people who are working (and have worked) hard to get the city where it is today.
.....rant over.
Warning.......rant ahead.
I personally think that some people find it hard to accept that St. Louis - which has been the source of so much negative press over the years - is in the midst of a renaissance because they still are able to see signs from that past. It's kind of like they have always had "low expectations" of the city so even though a whopping 62 buildings have been reno'ed downtown since 1998-99, and new ones are proposed and u/c, there is still this doubt. After all, it is St. Louis.
The title of the article is a downer. I think what is happening can be characterized as a renaissance. There have been billions spent over the last five years alone - infrastructure, commercial, residential, medical, office, schools, libraries, retail, parks, arts, sporting venues etc. etc. As City Hall says, "critical mass". And while I don't ever see St. Louis with 850,000 people again, quality (not quantity) is what matters most. I am personally impressed with the rate of new development and rehabs in the city. I am impressed with the transforming downtown especially - particularly the western edge. Most people have no clue how long that area was desolate, so to see the level of activity there is more than encouraging.
While some average citizens who live in the St. Louis area might not appreciate the visual and physical changes as much as expatriates who visit - a lot times from bigger "can do" cities - at one time St. Louis was a dump to visit. Not anymore. While there are problems, expats who visit can appreciate the pace of the changes. It's been rapid. Socially, it appears to be changing as well.
Sure there's always more that can be done - especially for a city core like St. Louis' that has seen so much depopulation, decay, and demolition over the years. Parts of North St. Louis/Central City actually used to look worse than they do now with decaying structures more prevalent. But the downturn didn't happen overnight so a bright and sparkly city is not going to happen overnight, yet the pace of redevelopment, to me, has been beyond remarkable.
It seems to me that despite so much development, there is still this BUT that follows. I guess BUTS are necessary because you can't allow complacency or grandiosity to set in, but I wish some of these articles would - and a few have - give credit where credit is due. St. Louis is in the midst of a serious turnaround. To characterize it any less, does a disservice to the people who are working (and have worked) hard to get the city where it is today.
.....rant over.
If anyone is familiar with "the Long Tail" I think you might see that St. Louis is experiencing a Long Tail rebirth. That is it's small changes on a broad scale. It's the neighborhoods that are being brought back home by home, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood. That is not as glamorous as skyscrapers or big name companies relocating. It's difficult for a journalist, especially one not living in the city, to identify and put this into words.
The good thing is that these are long term changes that will take hold rather than flashes in the pan that gain exposure and fizzle out. St. Louisans have reason to be proud. In the next couple of years you will see articles calling St. Louis an overnight sensation.
The good thing is that these are long term changes that will take hold rather than flashes in the pan that gain exposure and fizzle out. St. Louisans have reason to be proud. In the next couple of years you will see articles calling St. Louis an overnight sensation.
Hear, hear. I particularly agreed with you on this point:
Arch City wrote:I personally think that people find it hard to accept that St. Louis - which has been the source of so much negative press over the years - is in the midst of a renaissance because they still are able to see signs from that past. It's kind of like they have always had "low expectations" of the city so even though a whopping 62 buildings have been reno'ed downtown since 1998-99, and new ones are proposed and u/c, there is still this doubt. After all, it is St. Louis.
- 622
Rant needs to be posted on stltoday forum. I'm pretty sure we're all on board with what you posted.
^Been there, done that. Many of those people are hopeless. AND I'm serious.
We are the people in the best position to write the kind of article that needs to be written about St. Louis. I have written op-ed's before, but maybe it is time to break in to the realm of the free-lance special interest story. I think everyone on this site has unique and valuable insight into the rebirth of the city. The kind of insight that, as Stellar pointed out, is tough for an outsider to acquire. We live here. We pay close attention to what is going on. We are St. Louis. I know Gasm wrote something for "The Next American City" recently. Anyone who is disappointed in the un-informed outsider's view of the city should write a piece and shop it around. I just might.
- 11K
In the next couple of years you will see articles calling St. Louis an overnight sensation.
So very, very true. I hope that it's sustainable and lures some large companies to the metro area. I'm sure many of us remember reading a decade or more ago how Cleveland was an urban renewal success story, but they concentrated on sports stadiums and a couple downtown projects while neglecting the neighborhoods. I haven't read anything about Cleveland's "rennaissance" in quite some time.
There's no way a reporter who drops in for one day can assess the progress of St. Louis in any credible way.
The paragraph about the dishonest cops at the World Series is absolutely ridiculous and really makes the NYTimes seem petty and frivolous. I thought they had higher standards for themselves. This occurance was not only minor in the scheme of things, but the practice is in no way unique to St. Louis. It was clearly included in the article to add more "bang."
Unfortunately, St. Louis seems to be fighting an uphill battle in terms of the national media. But our revival doesn't depend on how others view us-- it's up to us to keep looking forward and tune out the detractors.
The paragraph about the dishonest cops at the World Series is absolutely ridiculous and really makes the NYTimes seem petty and frivolous. I thought they had higher standards for themselves. This occurance was not only minor in the scheme of things, but the practice is in no way unique to St. Louis. It was clearly included in the article to add more "bang."
Unfortunately, St. Louis seems to be fighting an uphill battle in terms of the national media. But our revival doesn't depend on how others view us-- it's up to us to keep looking forward and tune out the detractors.
- 11K
Unfortunately, St. Louis seems to be fighting an uphill battle in terms of the national media.
Somewhat ironic that the national media writes stories about how we're fighting a negative national reputation . . .
- 710
this article is the most emailed story from the nytimes today, just thought it interesting.
No such thing as bad exposure. This is the Time's backhanded way of saying we're up and coming... Of course, we're facing some tough issues. We'll see how we handle them.
This article, and many other specials that focus on st. louis, will continue to display our city this way. In order to stop the stereotypes , we need to stop acting like them.
Watch this series. The first production company to do something like this, not surprisingly, is from outside the area.
Watch this series. The first production company to do something like this, not surprisingly, is from outside the area.
I agree with Expat, I thought this was a pretty Lazy piece if you ask me. The writer could have gotten all the information for that, except the world series ticket scandal, from a handful of stories written about St. Louis FIVE YEARS ago.
Was the author Jason Blair? and people talk about the Post-Dispatch not being what it used to be...
Yes, some things were positive, but overall it was pretty negative. Why don't they mention more historic rehabs underway in Missouri (mostly St. Louis) than ANY OTHER STATE?! That's unique. do a little homework NYT.
St. Louis, "most dangerous city" why doesn't the NYT mention that as a region (MSA), we're safer than OKLAHOMA CITY!?
Will someone please email this thread to the author?
Was the author Jason Blair? and people talk about the Post-Dispatch not being what it used to be...
Yes, some things were positive, but overall it was pretty negative. Why don't they mention more historic rehabs underway in Missouri (mostly St. Louis) than ANY OTHER STATE?! That's unique. do a little homework NYT.
St. Louis, "most dangerous city" why doesn't the NYT mention that as a region (MSA), we're safer than OKLAHOMA CITY!?
Will someone please email this thread to the author?