Thinking of moving to Springfield...............Read this

[mia123]

I agree with Springfield being an 'ugly' city. I've said it for years. But I'm speaking of the main city streets, not the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are beautiful! Trees, big lawns, variety in architecture...all over town, not just one area. But the city streets- yuck. Glenstone is horrible, nothing but large signs and closed businesses. Huge and ugly billboards line the highways. There are few sidewalks and no landscaped greenways. Other cities this size have nice trees and/or plantings at corners or dividing the streets. Heck, even sign ordinances. There are no underground utilities on the main streets so you see ugly power lines. No nice street signs or traffic lights. Not even any nice signs at the main borders of the city. Even small towns offer a nice, landscaped, well lit sign welcoming visitors to their city. The intersection of Battlefield and Glenstone for the mall...eww! There are about five outdated signs for the mall. How about one nice one that works? And most malls have landscaping rather than just asphalt. That corner should have plantings not a carnival tent selling meat or rugs. I LIKE Springfield and the neighborhoods are nice. But I can't deny, the city is not pretty.

[lone sailor]

Originally Posted by mia123

I agree with Springfield being an 'ugly' city. I've said it for years. But I'm speaking of the main city streets, not the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are beautiful! Trees, big lawns, variety in architecture...all over town, not just one area. But the city streets- yuck. Glenstone is horrible, nothing but large signs and closed businesses. Huge and ugly billboards line the highways. There are few sidewalks and no landscaped greenways. Other cities this size have nice trees and/or plantings at corners or dividing the streets. Heck, even sign ordinances. There are no underground utilities on the main streets so you see ugly power lines. No nice street signs or traffic lights. Not even any nice signs at the main borders of the city. Even small towns offer a nice, landscaped, well lit sign welcoming visitors to their city. The intersection of Battlefield and Glenstone for the mall...eww! There are about five outdated signs for the mall. How about one nice one that works? And most malls have landscaping rather than just asphalt. That corner should have plantings not a carnival tent selling meat or rugs. I LIKE Springfield and the neighborhoods are nice. But I can't deny, the city is not pretty.

The city is as pretty, or as ugly as it's citizens. Everyone can help make it a better place.

[mia123]

Originally Posted by lone sailor

The city is as pretty, or as ugly as it's citizens. Everyone can help make it a better place.

True, the citizens here do tend to vote down what would make the city 'pretty'. I suppose you get what you pay for.
I specified what I think would make the city more 'attractive'. What do you think would make it a better place?

[Lake Junkie]

Originally Posted by lone sailor

The city is as pretty, or as ugly as it's citizens. Everyone can help make it a better place.

You speak the truth, lone sailor.

Mia...I do think you have some valid points. I have my own opinion about why we have some of these issues. For what it's worth, it seems to me that Missouri's long-held resistance to government involvement in the form of restrictive legislation, like we had in OVER abundance in CA, has led to the "less slightly" parts of the area. Just from my experience, the more restrictions an area has, the "cuter".....it is. Tahoe City for example. Restrictions from the git-go. Cute, tho. You want to open a business, ya have no choice!

Where I live down here at Table Rock Lake, restrictions have been slow in coming, so you end up with cute mixed up with junky. Many people who are looking at buying here from areas with mega-restrictions like California and Colorado are horrified that it's not doll-house cute like "back home"...but I appreciate the attitudes that say keep the gov'ment outa my life!

Over all, tho...isn't it a trade-off?

[8 SNAKE]

Originally Posted by Lake Junkie

Over all, tho...isn't it a trade-off?

Exactly. Restrictions are easy to live with, as long as you agree with the ones that are put in place.

[ShadowCaver]

Originally Posted by 8 SNAKE

Exactly. Restrictions are easy to live with, as long as you agree with the ones that are put in place.

Would also add that IMHO, restrictions, rules, laws, covenants, etc. are all fine and dandy, and can be very beneficial, WHEN they are put in place AND enforced with the will of those under them, with common sense and understanding [ie: knowing that at times there may be a grey area - life and this world is not black/white], not due to some dictatorial owner/overseer.

[Curmudgeon]

Maybe it's the old warrior in me but CC&Rs (codes, covenants and restrictions) do not square with my idea of home ownership. I can understand and accept certain municipal controls for the greater good (trash, weed abatement, burning days, reasonable easements, etc.) but I refuse to pay a community association that's going to tell me what color I can paint my house and increase its rates to the point that I'm almost renting the land I actually own.

As always, just one man's opinion!

[NOLA2SGF]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Maybe it's the old warrior in me but CC&Rs (codes, covenants and restrictions) do not square with my idea of home ownership. I can understand and accept certain municipal controls for the greater good (trash, weed abatement, burning days, reasonable easements, etc.) but I refuse to pay a community association that's going to tell me what color I can paint my house and increase its rates to the point that I'm almost renting the land I actually own.

As always, just one man's opinion!

Exactly!! I share your opinion. CC&R's can help to create a lovely development, and a lot of people prefer to have them as is their right. My choice is not to deal with CC&R's and HOA's. I realize that not all HOA"s are alike, but I see no reason to risk the aggravation that they can cause if I don't have to. .

When I move to Springfield in 2010, I will be looking in the 40-50 year old neighborhoods in south Springfield, inside the city limits. I think this way I will avoid the issues you listed. These neighborhoods are attractive and residents keep the grass cut, their property neat and tidy, and their houses nicely painted in reasonable colors, just as I always do. The houses are older, but if necessary I could update a kitchen or bathroom and end up with my dream house and no HOA or CC&R's.

Each to his own! We all have our own dreams and the great thing is that we all have choices in this great country.

And as for the appearance of Glenstone - - it doesn't bother me at all. It is a commercial corridor and looks like it. I have no problem with that. I am glad that the mall and so many shops are located along Glenstone. I will probably do my share of shopping there "to prop up the economy singlehandedly", so to speak, after my move to Springfield.

By the way, when I returned to Springfield back in 2006 for the first time in 42 years, we entered South Springfield via the Glenstone exit from the freeway. We were very impressed (in fact, blown away in surprise!) by the apparently thriving business community there, and got a wonderful first impression of Springfield. Now further north, Glenstone doesn't look as new and pretty but that is OK with me.