and WHY aren't these market rate? Isn't the west end a little pricey? We can push these developments farther north, to improve these areas. A former "Ritz-Carlton" of its era doesn't need to be low income housing if you ask me.

looks very good, especially when lit up at night. Too bad these weren't converted to market rate condos and are actually low income housing.



This whole corner needs a redevelopment plan. Surface lots, big box retail (empty) and fast food places need to be pushed out and street-side buildings need to be put in their place.

If developers are able to offer quality housing that lower income people can afford, I say more power to them. Really, what's the problem with that? Don't we want to improve the quality of all housing in St. Louis?

But this is a good thing, because that is what it was like when the city had nearly a million residents.

I can't believe you actually said that. When the city had a million people the home I live in had twelve residents and no indoor plumbing! St. Louis is not going to return to its former glory, but it can become more urban and make wise development decisions.

I don't think it's "oversensitive" to point out that all residents of affordable housing should not be stigmatized (or slandered) simply because of the statistical fact that crime and public disorder tend to be concentrated in low-income areas.



All affordable housing is not equal.



MacCormack Baron homes have a reputation for being extremely well-maintained and for having good, solid tenants. Does Bastiat know something we don't know about the "REAL" character of these tenants? Are there criminals, public-urinators, pan-handlers, etc. lurking in those newly renovated apartments?



Bastiat ignores the fact that a lot of high-earning people WANT to live in economically diverse communities. Not every middle and upper-middle class person feels at home in Clayton or Ladue. Some young professionals find uniformity boring. Some parents WANT their kids to be around people from different socio-economic backgrounds.



The CWE is a unique asset. You would destroy the fabric of that neighborhood if you chased out (or priced out) most of the low-income people.

1940s level densities were reached precisely when the residences of the rich were subdivided and turned into boarding homes. The idea that the rich once dominated dense, city neighborhoods while the poor were safely stowed away in equally dense neighborhoods is unfounded.



Only the Hortense Places and the Portland Places of the Central West End used to represent the mansion district, or garden suburb, so prevalent in other cities as a response to overcrowding in the industrializing core.



These areas alone were--and still are--prohibitive for poor people to occupy, due to both their sheer size, and moreover, restrictive covenants and private-street status.



So to say that the CWE should "return" to the rich is disingenuous. No one income group ever occupied the neighborhood solely, or even predominantly. I've met many a working class or lower middle class elder who told me they grew up near Euclid and Laclede or a similar CWE intersection.



Only the private streets of the CWE fit this profile, and they were "threatened" by the influx of the poor only briefly in their history. More importantly, while beautiful and luxurious assets of the city's architectural stock, they're hardly hubs of urban activity and vitality.



Few respected planners call for the ultimate economic homogenization of a neighborhood--and I don't believe that's because it's a PC position either. It's because the friction of different groups of people coming together produces the best art, the widest range of dining and retail options, the infusion of local character from all points on the income spectrum, and other measures of city vitality that people look for when they move to cities.

Bastiat, I understand the point you're trying to make, but I disagree. I think the CWE should embrace all racial, ethnic and socio-economic groups to live up to its all-inclusive appeal. A neighborhood full of all of the same is uninteresting and unnecessary IMO. There is room for all groups in the CWE. It does not have to resemble Clayton or Ladue in order to be a stronghold of power, wealth and prestige in the City.



One of the best characteristics of the CWE is that it is one neighborhood that features multi-million-dollar mansions adjacent to market rate and subsidized housing. As close to urban harmony as it gets. What a fantastic mix.

^

At the same time, and maybe this is kind of along the lines of Bastiat's thinking, the CWE became a home to many social service providers and low(er)-income housing developments during a time in which people weren't excactly clammoring to move to the area. Property was cheap back when areas that are nice today were still considered sketchy. In many ways, those service providers and developments may have played a role in helping to stabilize the neighborhood, which is now upscale once again.



Now that the market can support higher/better uses of property in the CWE, we'll likely not see any new low-income developments there. In the DeBaliviere Place thread, for example, people mentioned that there are still a few "problem" properties along Pershing - the low-income apartments. Maybe it's time to convert those apartments to market-rate and renovate some of the outstanding buildings just north of Delmar for lower-income tenants to help preserve the building stock and possibly help stabilize that transitional area.

In this case, I actually agree with Bastiat. I think the market should dictate these types of things. If the developers of this site felt their best use was market rate apartments, or low income housing, it's up to them.



I have no problem seeing the rates in the CWE rise. That says to me that the area is a hotbed of development, and it's where people want to live. I personally don't care what the people on the street look like, as long as there are people on the street. But generally, urban areas bring a more diverse conglomerate of human-types than suburban areas.

One thing everyone forgets is that the market (demand side) would rule mercifully in the favor of low income folks.



There is always a demand for low income residences, especially in the city of St. Louis. When the market-rate housing market is soft, however, you'll have problems moving units. With Low Income Tax Credits, it often makes a lot of sense to offer low income units instead of taking the risk of selling market rate in an uneasy market.

^ I certainly don't want the city to start treating low-income individuals any worse, but it's time the county pitch in. There really aren't any large neighborhoods (at least in the central corridor) in the city devoid of low-income housing, the CWE, Lafayette Square . . .

Is Clayton really the measure of urban vibrancy, the standard that St. Louis should try to equal? Hmm...no disrespect to Clayton, but it's not what I would want for St. Louis.



When suburbs don't offer affordable housing (except for predominantly low income suburbs, such as Jennings and Wellston), it creates a demand in areas willing to offer them. It's the same with homeless services. It is apparently the role of the city to assume social services to the minds of nonurban dwellers in the metropolitan area. And this is true in most other urban metros. And so it becomes true.



There is a unofficial contract between a city and its suburbs that the city partake in social programs and receive the corresponding federal monies while the suburbs deny responsibility and cut themselves off from funding they do not need anyway.



All that said, cities have NEVER been islands of wealth. Never. I don't know why there is any belief in this. When the city was extremely dense and had all of the metro's wealth within it, the poor lived among the rich in dense neighborhoods, paying low rents for incredibly small spaces.



Even if your idea is that we need more wealth in the city, it's foolish to believe somehow putting market rate housing in low income neighborhoods will suddenly awaken the rich to these treasure troves and then gentrification will begin. It's tragically much more complex than that.

I find it curious that in Europe, and many South American countries, the cities are islands of wealth, while the poor are relegated to the suburban slums.

Framer wrote:I find it curious that in Europe, and many South American countries, the cities are islands of wealth, while the poor are relegated to the suburban slums.

Sshhh...don't bring that up.

^^ Euroslut!