^ 
If only it was that simple...
If only it was that simple...
DeBaliviere wrote:As far as moving to the exurbs goes, keep in mind that some people are just born to be lame. If they were from Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, etc., they'd still live the same lifestyle. The problem we have is that a lot of younger people who crave an urban lifestyle move elsewhere, thinking that they can't get the kind of urban experience they want here in St. Louis.
That's a great point, DeBaliviere. Some people want that "idyllic" 1950s new subdivision prosperity-but-conformity experience, and those people exist across the country.
Instead of worrying about those people, as you said, we should be fighting to keep and attract the younger people who leave St. Louis because they don't perceive it offering the experience that coastal cities can.
ThreeOneFour wrote:^ You may be right.
I know that leaders in places like Warrenton, Troy, and Pevely are loathe to shoo away growth, as the increase in businesses and people results in more revenue, making it much easier to provide essential services to those already living in their communities. OTOH, I bet some residents of those communities aren't necessarily happy about the growth, as it comes with a hard-to-define yet real "price"- loss of open space that attracted them to those areas in the first place, overworked infrastructure, crowded schools, etc.
As more and more land is consumed for suburban development, there could be a movement at some point in the future to establish limits. I just wonder how much more open land (and density) we'll lose before enough people at the area's fringes get fed up with this (at least IMHO) ominous trend.
I think land (over)use is an important discussion, 314. But part of me can't resist the irony and saying these people got what they deserved. Say they moved to O'Fallon in 1978.. then during the 80s and 90s everyone proceeded to follow them. Now they've moved to Foristell to reclaim their space and privacy.. and Foristell is starting to grow, too. Can't they see -- it's a neverending cycle. You can leave the city, but inevitably you take it with you.
- 5,433
Tysalpha wrote:But part of me can't resist the irony and saying these people got what they deserved. Say they moved to O'Fallon in 1978.. then during the 80s and 90s everyone proceeded to follow them. Now they've moved to Foristell to reclaim their space and privacy.. and Foristell is starting to grow, too. Can't they see -- it's a neverending cycle. You can leave the city, but inevitably you take it with you.
Sometimes I see the irony in it too...and I think many of those participating in the never-ending cycle are oblivious to it.
Does anyone remember what it was like to exit I-70 at Wentzville and take Hwy 40 into St. Louis about 3 years ago? How about 10 years?
I did it for the first time this week in about 3 years and it totally blew me away.
Where on earth does the capital and credit come from to finance the building of an entirely new "city" on greenfields in only 3-5 years?
I can't help but agree that this is entirely a zero sum game. It has got to become known that this isn't growth and development in any stretch of the meanings. It is only expansion and displacement. I hope St. Louis County is preparing to become what the city did in the 1970s -- maybe on an even larger scale.
As far as the Illinois side - what is feeding the expansion over there? Are Missourians moving over to Illinois or is the expansion from current residents?
I did it for the first time this week in about 3 years and it totally blew me away.
Where on earth does the capital and credit come from to finance the building of an entirely new "city" on greenfields in only 3-5 years?
I can't help but agree that this is entirely a zero sum game. It has got to become known that this isn't growth and development in any stretch of the meanings. It is only expansion and displacement. I hope St. Louis County is preparing to become what the city did in the 1970s -- maybe on an even larger scale.
As far as the Illinois side - what is feeding the expansion over there? Are Missourians moving over to Illinois or is the expansion from current residents?
Sprawl according to Peirce:
Leapfrogged physical development to the distant suburbs and exurbs...does so much to drive up road and server and water costs, worsen air pollution, and distance poor people from new jobs...while the diversion of capital triggers severe disinvestment in the old center city.
Density is decreasing fast. Even if the MSA's were not added, we would still show density decreases! People moving from the dense inner core to the sparse exurbs will produce regional reductions in density!
The justification for adding more Counties to the MSA is due to sprawl, that being if 25% of a non-MSA Counties workforce travels into an MSA, then that non-MSA County becomes a part of the MSA. Simply put exurban or rural workers can travel from the hinterlands to St. Charles for a job, thus the MSA gets even bigger. I would say that as the MSA gets bigger, we have more sprawl. Why? The fact that even more rural workers are traveling into "less than rural but MSA areas" like St. Charles shows that jobs once in the core are moving west. This is also proven by the 2% job growth outside the metro area (65).
I quote:
Areas farthest from St. Louis’ urban core continue to experience the most rapid population and employment growth in the region (70).
In 2003, an additional 2,257 square miles were added to the St. Louis MSA to reflect the incorporation of outlying areas. Population density in the region fell by 21 percent between 2000 and 2005, illustrating continued land-use expansion absent of high levels of population growth (70).
Population density, a measure of persons per square mile, has been going down in St. Louis as the population spreads out and moves farther from the urban core (16-17).
Again, as these areas are added to the MSA and experience the most rapid population and employment growth in the region, our density will continue to fall! Re-read the second bolded quote. Land use expansion absent of population growth is sprawl.
Missouri must have legislation that prohibits the further suburbanization of this Region. Continuing this path creates many problems while threatening to destroy not only urban but rural lifestyles.
This has been done in European Cities like Liverpool since the 70's! We can learn a lot from their land use restrictions!
Sprawl is happening in most US cities:
Average central city densities, estimated by the urban density gradient calculation, decreases from 3,433 in 1990 to 3,381 in 2000; among the 325 metropolitan areas, 183 of them show decline in the central city density despite the fact that they were experiencing population increases that would increase densities. This is due to the fact that the population increases occurred outside the central core and also due expanding metropolitan boundaries.
Jargowsky, Paul and Yang, Rebecca. “Suburbanization and Economic Segregation.” Journal of Urban Affairs. 28.3 (2006): 254-269
Leapfrogged physical development to the distant suburbs and exurbs...does so much to drive up road and server and water costs, worsen air pollution, and distance poor people from new jobs...while the diversion of capital triggers severe disinvestment in the old center city.
Ihnen wrote:^ you seem to be talking about a ratio - St. Charles county can increase its density by 20% and the city by 5% - that doesn't mean that density is decreasing in the city. Overall, my argument is that density is changing very slowly - at least I'm arguing that this is what the report says.
Density is decreasing fast. Even if the MSA's were not added, we would still show density decreases! People moving from the dense inner core to the sparse exurbs will produce regional reductions in density!
The justification for adding more Counties to the MSA is due to sprawl, that being if 25% of a non-MSA Counties workforce travels into an MSA, then that non-MSA County becomes a part of the MSA. Simply put exurban or rural workers can travel from the hinterlands to St. Charles for a job, thus the MSA gets even bigger. I would say that as the MSA gets bigger, we have more sprawl. Why? The fact that even more rural workers are traveling into "less than rural but MSA areas" like St. Charles shows that jobs once in the core are moving west. This is also proven by the 2% job growth outside the metro area (65).
I quote:
Areas farthest from St. Louis’ urban core continue to experience the most rapid population and employment growth in the region (70).
In 2003, an additional 2,257 square miles were added to the St. Louis MSA to reflect the incorporation of outlying areas. Population density in the region fell by 21 percent between 2000 and 2005, illustrating continued land-use expansion absent of high levels of population growth (70).
Population density, a measure of persons per square mile, has been going down in St. Louis as the population spreads out and moves farther from the urban core (16-17).
Again, as these areas are added to the MSA and experience the most rapid population and employment growth in the region, our density will continue to fall! Re-read the second bolded quote. Land use expansion absent of population growth is sprawl.
Missouri must have legislation that prohibits the further suburbanization of this Region. Continuing this path creates many problems while threatening to destroy not only urban but rural lifestyles.
This has been done in European Cities like Liverpool since the 70's! We can learn a lot from their land use restrictions!
Sprawl is happening in most US cities:
Average central city densities, estimated by the urban density gradient calculation, decreases from 3,433 in 1990 to 3,381 in 2000; among the 325 metropolitan areas, 183 of them show decline in the central city density despite the fact that they were experiencing population increases that would increase densities. This is due to the fact that the population increases occurred outside the central core and also due expanding metropolitan boundaries.
Jargowsky, Paul and Yang, Rebecca. “Suburbanization and Economic Segregation.” Journal of Urban Affairs. 28.3 (2006): 254-269
- 11K
Doug, dude.
My point is only that population density is increasing in St. Louis City. The report notes that population growth for the City of St. Louis has been positive since 2003. The report also states that taking in a few years before this showed population loss coming to an end in the city.
My point is only that population density is increasing in St. Louis City. The report notes that population growth for the City of St. Louis has been positive since 2003. The report also states that taking in a few years before this showed population loss coming to an end in the city.
Ihnen wrote:Doug, dude.
My point is only that population density is increasing in St. Louis City. The report notes that population growth for the City of St. Louis has been positive since 2003. The report also states that taking in a few years before this showed population loss coming to an end in the city.
My point is that any small gains made in the City are insignificant when the entire region is sprawling. Moreover, what small population growth the City has experienced could easily fall as jobs continue to head west. As STLGasm said, 2 move here and 10 move out. With this trend our future is uncertain. The overall trend is against any recent small gains. Policy needs to be taken in order to limit sprawl.
- 11K
^ I really think we agree - we're just looking at different aspects of the same issue.
I'm encouraged by the increased density in certain neighborhoods (CWE, FPSE, Benton Park, Washington Avenue, etc.) as I think this is what creates vibrant neighborhoods. Whatever growth happens in the StL or StC counties doesn't make these neighborhoods less vibrant as long as they also continue to add residents - which they are doing. That being said, you are absolutely right about sprawl.
I'm encouraged by the increased density in certain neighborhoods (CWE, FPSE, Benton Park, Washington Avenue, etc.) as I think this is what creates vibrant neighborhoods. Whatever growth happens in the StL or StC counties doesn't make these neighborhoods less vibrant as long as they also continue to add residents - which they are doing. That being said, you are absolutely right about sprawl.
No one has shown how this is true. If it were true there would be a decrease in population. There isn't.As STLGasm said, 2 move here and 10 move out
I think Gasm was more discussion the population loss of St. Louis County, not St. Louis City. The County seems to be decreasing, though not drastically like the city did years ago. I don't have data to back it up, but I do understand why younger people seem to either move to the city, or out to the exurbs. It's a money thing. You can still find cheap affordable housing in the city, and the same goes for the exurbs. The county is continually pricing out the middle, there are parts that are less expensive, but if you are looking for new construction, space, and good schools, you're not going to choose those locations. Chances are most parents would take the Wentzville School District over the Ritenour School District.
The city will continue to capitalize on urban minded youth. But unless it can cross the barrier to provide good cheap schooling, it's population will never reach back to the 'glory' days of St. Louis.
The city will continue to capitalize on urban minded youth. But unless it can cross the barrier to provide good cheap schooling, it's population will never reach back to the 'glory' days of St. Louis.
I don't mean to turn this into yet another debate about the city schools, but how important, really, are the city schools. Everyone seems to accept it as dogma, but it's my understanding that no major city in this country has a good public school system.
Can anyone else confirm this? How good are NYC's, Chicago's, or LA's schools?
I don't think we can ignore the schools, but is it actually the case that no schools, no great city?
Can anyone else confirm this? How good are NYC's, Chicago's, or LA's schools?
I don't think we can ignore the schools, but is it actually the case that no schools, no great city?
steve wrote:I don't mean to turn this into yet another debate about the city schools, but how important, really, are the city schools. Everyone seems to accept it as dogma, but it's my understanding that no major city in this country has a good public school system.
Can anyone else confirm this? How good are NYC's, Chicago's, or LA's schools?
I don't think we can ignore the schools, but is it actually the case that no schools, no great city?
The short is that without middle class families our taxing capacity will be limited. This is a unique situation since some would argue that without the middle class our schools will not have the capacity to get better. Regardless, we need our SLPS to perform better for the simple reason that we need people to have children and raise them in the City. Couples who have kids and raise them in the City provide larger increases in population. Gay couples or empy nesters do not have the same potential future growth since they do not have children. We can make big increases attracting them, but people, like myself, need to be attracted. I will raise my kids in the City at any financial cost, yet many others are not as dedicated. Many families feel this way and that is why they don't move here or leave once they consider having children. We must improve the schools or our progress will be limited.
I would refer you to the information below regarding other Cities and school districts:
If you talk to Francis about the structure of the St. Louis Government, he will tell you it is a weak Mayor form. Francis may actually say it is a horrible system in which nothing gets done. He is only one vote on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, he does not control the Police or the SLPS, etc. I have wrote about this before. Having a stronger mayor could lead to problems, yet having a weak mayor leaves little accountability or incentive for success. When something goes wrong, the Mayor can simply blame the BOA or some other entities.
<a href="http://stlschools.org/viewtopic.php?t=4">Read more</a>
Yeah, I know, I get it, we need middle-class families. I'm just stating that other cities--ones larger and sexier than our own burg--seem to be doing just fine without strong schools.
So, in the end, how important are the schools to resurrecting St. Louis' "glory" days?
So, in the end, how important are the schools to resurrecting St. Louis' "glory" days?
- 153
Right now I live in Chicago and have chosen to live in a particular neighborhood because the (non-magnet) public elementary school is wonderful. I could have chosen amongst half a dozen similar scenarios... not to mention the magnet and montessori (yes, public montessori) schools. Needless to say these wonderful schools (Great attendance, testing, low expulsion and drop out rates)... are the reason these particlar neighborhoods are sought out by urban parents. Neighborhoods are often refered to (even in real estate marketing) by their elementary school "areas"... Ie: "Blaine District", "Bell District", etc.... A huge new development of high-rise condo's in Streeterville actully included a Public Elementary School in the RFP! That's right! No school, no development rights....
Yes, Public Schools are a must in a Renaissance City. There are only so many Singles, Childless Couples and Empty Nesters.
Yes, Public Schools are a must in a Renaissance City. There are only so many Singles, Childless Couples and Empty Nesters.
- 516
^what are your options for middle school and high school? Magnet or private?
Its a great neighborhood asset to have quality elementary schools within the neighborhood (can you guess which UCity elementary schools outperform the rest of the district?), but there's still the problem of keeping families in the school district as the children grow older.
Its a great neighborhood asset to have quality elementary schools within the neighborhood (can you guess which UCity elementary schools outperform the rest of the district?), but there's still the problem of keeping families in the school district as the children grow older.
Chicago inner city schools are just as bad as St. Louis' and any other major city in the country. They are all underfunded, overworked, understaffed, and misused. In addition, most of the schools are facing miserable "family" conditions within the students alone and sense of moral foundations to begin. Parents put their children in school not to educate but to babysit in many cases.
There are many public schools in St. Louis city that have credible students and quality education as well... it is, like you said, finding these neighborhoods and relocating there to take advantage of that district.
Ther are also many private, parochial and chartered school options in the city.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n16662435
There are many public schools in St. Louis city that have credible students and quality education as well... it is, like you said, finding these neighborhoods and relocating there to take advantage of that district.
Ther are also many private, parochial and chartered school options in the city.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n16662435
- 11K
I agree with you for the most part (and I offer no solutions), but I think you'll find many that disagree with this:
Funding is relatively high and class sizes are relatively low (in comparison with public school in the county). I think you hit the nail on the head to mention family issues.
They are all underfunded, overworked, understaffed, and misused.
Funding is relatively high and class sizes are relatively low (in comparison with public school in the county). I think you hit the nail on the head to mention family issues.
- 153
Middle school in Chicago is less of an issue now. Elementary is moving to K-8. High Schools are an issue, but there are several options with regard to college prep and tech (similar to STL). In my opinion, the elementary level is key. Strong elementary allows young families to stay in the city. By the time their kids have reached high school, wage earners are in more of a position to afford private high schools.
A plethora of gentrifying Chicago neighborhoods are seeing a rebirth of once unacceptable elementary schools. Several implement a Montessori program. Thats right! A public school where the kids where uniforms! While this approach is succeeding, it also is drawing negative reaction from the less affluent areas (Mr. Meeks article on the provided link is a case in point). These inequities are real, but at the same time unavoidable. The best teachers do not want to babysit problem kids. If the kids were forced to wear uniforms at these schools, drop out rate would be higher than it already is. But you have to start somewhere.
If STL had a similar approach, neighborhoods such as Soulard, Layfayette Square and Wash Ave. would have acceptable elementary schools. Definitely this is not the case. In fact, I believe Ann School in Soulard was closed down a while back. Does the CWE even have a non-magnet public school of worth? I would imagine STL Hills does, but can not think of another solid non-magnet elementary in the city.
A plethora of gentrifying Chicago neighborhoods are seeing a rebirth of once unacceptable elementary schools. Several implement a Montessori program. Thats right! A public school where the kids where uniforms! While this approach is succeeding, it also is drawing negative reaction from the less affluent areas (Mr. Meeks article on the provided link is a case in point). These inequities are real, but at the same time unavoidable. The best teachers do not want to babysit problem kids. If the kids were forced to wear uniforms at these schools, drop out rate would be higher than it already is. But you have to start somewhere.
If STL had a similar approach, neighborhoods such as Soulard, Layfayette Square and Wash Ave. would have acceptable elementary schools. Definitely this is not the case. In fact, I believe Ann School in Soulard was closed down a while back. Does the CWE even have a non-magnet public school of worth? I would imagine STL Hills does, but can not think of another solid non-magnet elementary in the city.
- 10K
marc buxton wrote:I would imagine STL Hills does, but can not think of another solid non-magnet elementary in the city.
You'd think so, but no, unfortunately.
- 46
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/magaz ... l">This</a> is a good (and long) article about educating disadvantaged urban kids...lots of interesting studies quoted therein.
Toll put it this way: “We want to change the conversation from ‘You can’t educate these kids’ to ‘You can only educate these kids if. ...’ ” And to a great extent, she and the other principals have done so. The message inherent in the success of their schools is that if poor students are going to catch up, they will require not the same education that middle-class children receive but one that is considerably better; they need more time in class than middle-class students, better-trained teachers and a curriculum that prepares them psychologically and emotionally, as well as intellectually, for the challenges ahead of them.