Canada isn't even a real country....you can't use their websites aboot who knows what as sources

Sign me up... I'd volunteer my time to be on this committee... and I am more than qualified as are many many people in this city.... I just have no power whatsoever. Thats the problem is how do we get through to closed minded officials?

We elect new ones.

Easier said than done... doesnt seem to be as many progressives running these days

Doug wrote:Omaha has done similar things, as has African American Mayor Cory Booker of Newark New Jersey. St. Louis is behind the times.

Interesting that you chose to include his race. Do you call someone "white Mayor ________ __________" when talking about something completed unrelated to race?

Magnatron wrote:Easier said than done... doesnt seem to be as many progressives running these days

Or, maybe because St. Louisans keep electing Democrats from the same families over and over again, and then they wonder why nothing changes. Maybe it's time to be truly progressive and elect a Republican Mayor!

jlblues wrote:

Magnatron wrote:Easier said than done... doesnt seem to be as many progressives running these days

Or, maybe because St. Louisans keep electing Democrats from the same families over and over again, and then they wonder why nothing changes. Maybe it's time to be truly progressive and elect a Republican Mayor!

the reason why even conservatives in the city of St. Louis don't associate themselves with the Republican Party is because the GOP in Missouri makes a sport of dissing the cities.

To be fair, the Democrats to some extent write off the rural parts of the state too but it's not as blatant as it is with Blunt, Kinder et al.

Actually I would love to go back to the days when the Republicans were competitive in the city and the Democrats had a chance outstate. I may want one side to win over the other but competition is a good thing

Doug wrote:

Juice13610 wrote:

Doug wrote:Omaha has done similar things, as has African American Mayor Cory Booker of Newark New Jersey. St. Louis is behind the times.

Interesting that you chose to include his race. Do you call someone "white Mayor ________ __________" when talking about something completed unrelated to race?

If you understood anything regarding preservation in St. Louis then this would be obvious. But you don't.

Yeah, guess not. Whatever good or bad happened, it was definitely based on the color of said mayor. Grow up.

southsidepride wrote:the reason why even conservatives in the city of St. Louis don't associate themselves with the Republican Party is because the GOP in Missouri makes a sport of dissing the cities.

To be fair, the Democrats to some extent write off the rural parts of the state too but it's not as blatant as it is with Blunt, Kinder et al.

Um, sure. You have a very selective memory.



I seem to recall a certain 4-term Mayor of St. Louis running for Governor of the State of Missouri dismissing his Democratic primary opponent, Mel Carnahan, as "the redneck from Rolla".



And just last year, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill referred to herself as a member of the “redneck caucus”, ostensibly because Missouri is a "red state", whatever that means. That is what she thinks of her constituents.



Seems pretty blatant to me.

Urban oriented Republicans usually become the conservative Democrats in primaries if they get involved in city politics because the state GOP ignores them.

doug reminds me of the guy on Howard Stern: "King of all blacks".

I don't understand why the Newark Mayor's race was relevant either. Please explain Doug.

southsidepride wrote:the reason why even conservatives in the city of St. Louis don't associate themselves with the Republican Party is because the GOP in Missouri makes a sport of dissing the cities.

To be fair, the Democrats to some extent write off the rural parts of the state too but it's not as blatant as it is with Blunt, Kinder et al.

Um, sure. You have a very selective memory.



I seem to recall a certain 4-term Mayor of St. Louis, running for Governor of the State of Missouri, dismissing his Democratic primary opponent, Mel Carnahan, as "the redneck from Rolla".



And just last year, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill referred to herself as a member of the “redneck caucus”, ostensibly because Missouri is a "red state", whatever that means, but it certainly is a good indication of what she thinks of her constituents.



Seems pretty blatant to me.

Doug wrote:

JCity wrote:doug reminds me of the guy on Howard Stern: "King of all blacks".

I don't understand why the Newark Mayor's race was relevant either. Please explain Doug.

Some African Americans view preservation as white elites telling them what to do with their neighborhood. Not only is there the ward issue, that people outside the ward are telling them to save a building, but when they're white it's even more interesting.



But I do understand how it may feel when some white kid, like myself, tells African American leaders twice my age to rehab a building. They may view me as a part of same racist white hegemony which is keeping them down. When in fact preservation equals empowerment whereas vacant lots only generate trash, not tax revenue.



The fact that an African American Mayor stands for development standards is significant. It could be used as an example of how preservation and urbanism has nothing to do with race. Preservationists and urbanists are not trying to tell the Black leadership what to do. It's not some white man's burden. We don't want to manage their turf. It's simply that preservation and urban design increases property values much more than vacant lots or pod style tract housing.

Doug, I'm black and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would like to see many buildings in North St. Louis be rehabbed. People seem to think that destroying 19th century architecture and replacing it with suburban style HUD housing will bring back the city.....well there wrong. I think there is a need for better quality affordable housing that matches the environment. In Baltimore they have low income housing that blends in with the urban environment. Why cant we at least get affordable housing in St. Louis that compliments the area.....like eliminating plastic SIDING! St. Louis City seems not to value true urbanism and they think creating suburban style environments in the city will attract people. We really need to get off this Urban Renewal minded idealism among city leaders. We are behind times here, I just cant wait to start my masters in Urban Planning so I can come back to St. Louis and teach those people a lesson. Like I've said before a city like Charleston has created a economy off of historical architecture tourism and yuppies. St. Louis could do the same in an even bigger way considering we have a hell of a lot more than a city the size of Charleston......sh*t the whole city of St. Louis could be considered historical with most of the buildings being built pre-autocentric era.

jlblues wrote:

southsidepride wrote:the reason why even conservatives in the city of St. Louis don't associate themselves with the Republican Party is because the GOP in Missouri makes a sport of dissing the cities.

To be fair, the Democrats to some extent write off the rural parts of the state too but it's not as blatant as it is with Blunt, Kinder et al.

Um, sure. You have a very selective memory.



I seem to recall a certain 4-term Mayor of St. Louis, running for Governor of the State of Missouri, dismissing his Democratic primary opponent, Mel Carnahan, as "the redneck from Rolla".



And just last year, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill referred to herself as a member of the “redneck caucus”, ostensibly because Missouri is a "red state", whatever that means, but it certainly is a good indication of what she thinks of her constituents.



Seems pretty blatant to me.

well in the first instance Mayor Schoehmehl was roundly punished by Democratic primary voters for that comment. When Matt Blunt made the comment that you only find Democrats in "places where no one wants to live anymore" what kind of rebuke did he get from Republicans? I don't recall any.

In the second instance I wasn't aware of McCaskill's comments. I know in her Senate campaign in 06 she tried harder than Dems usually do to get outstate votes and it wound up being a key to her narrow victory. If she wants to keep that coalition going she should watch her mouth.

Doug wrote:

JCity wrote:doug reminds me of the guy on Howard Stern: "King of all blacks".

I don't understand why the Newark Mayor's race was relevant either. Please explain Doug.

Some African Americans view preservation as white elites telling them what to do with their neighborhood. Not only is there the ward issue, that people outside the ward are telling them to save a building, but when they're white it's even more interesting.



But I do understand how it may feel when some white kid, like myself, tells African American leaders twice my age to rehab a building. They may view me as a part of same racist white hegemony which is keeping them down. When in fact preservation equals empowerment whereas vacant lots only generate trash, not tax revenue.



The fact that an African American Mayor stands for development standards is significant. It could be used as an example of how preservation and urbanism has nothing to do with race. Preservationists and urbanists are not trying to tell the Black leadership what to do. It's not some white man's burden. We don't want to manage their turf. It's simply that preservation and urban design increases property values much more than vacant lots or pod style tract housing.

I seem to recall a University of Wisconsin study that dealt with this very topic. I believe the findings were that middle-class blacks preferred new over rehabbed housing. Thus, many blacks have left the city for suburbia. Are you saying the interests of preservationists usurp what a given community may want? Somehow, I think the community and its representatives should have a greater say in their destiny although preservationist factors should be taken into account as well.

I seem to recall a certain 4-term Mayor of St. Louis

Mayor from 1981 to 1993. Three terms.

publiceye wrote:

I seem to recall a certain 4-term Mayor of St. Louis

Mayor from 1981 to 1993. Three terms.

He's not dead yet.

Correction: Three terms, so far.

Are you saying the interests of preservationists usurp what a given community may want?

I am, because quite honestly, many might not understand that rehabbed historic housing will be a far better investment for an area versus leveling everything for suburban style houses in the city. Do you think you could command $300-800,000 for houses in Soulard, if they had leveled that neighborhood like some pushed for in the 60's, today? I doubt it. Preservation of historic structures in the city is the LAST remaining competitive advantage for some of these neighborhoods. If you don't believe, me just drive around many neighborhoods of the north side. The Ville is one of the best examples. I want the Ville to become the "harlem" of St. Louis again. Come back upper middle class blacks!



Innovation, we generally agree on most debates in here, but this one my friend, I have to disagree.

^ thx jcity. i see your point but believe this a chicken vs. egg issue. and what may go is likely not the best historical stock imho. perhaps you lose 10-20% to gain preservation of the other 80-90%. preservationists would be wise to focus their eyes on the greater good and not become overly short-sighted and lose the whole kit and kaboodle in the process.



keep in mind that reinvestment and luring the black middle class and others back to old north will reduce crime, drugs and other filth. and what's more important, saving some old brick buildings or human lives?