U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2014, 10:16 AM
 
1,710 posts, read 1,774,865 times
Reputation: 1849

Advertisements

I agree wholly-the upper north side is ripe for gentrification, but the lower north side is far from that. I think a grassroots movement a la ONSL, combined with proper marketing and restoration, can bring wealthier residents to neighborhoods further north like Baden, which would then push the middle class residents to the lower half of the north side and allow them to uplift that area and improve the situation for the lower-class residents there. However, I would also like to add that I feel the land south of Cass Avenue should be rezoned for commercial development-I don't think low-class housing should be so close to the city center (nothing against those residents, but criminals are usually from the lower class). There's literally nothing of historic value between downtown and Cass, so a rezoning for commercial (and possibly higher end housing) wouldn't come at too great a cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2014, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Saint Louis
189 posts, read 319,524 times
Reputation: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
I agree wholly-the upper north side is ripe for gentrification, but the lower north side is far from that. I think a grassroots movement a la ONSL, combined with proper marketing and restoration, can bring wealthier residents to neighborhoods further north like Baden, which would then push the middle class residents to the lower half of the north side and allow them to uplift that area and improve the situation for the lower-class residents there. However, I would also like to add that I feel the land south of Cass Avenue should be rezoned for commercial development-I don't think low-class housing should be so close to the city center (nothing against those residents, but criminals are usually from the lower class). There's literally nothing of historic value between downtown and Cass, so a rezoning for commercial (and possibly higher end housing) wouldn't come at too great a cost.
I'd agree with the above. All things considered, Columbus Square and that area east of Lafayette would actually be very desirable locations for redevelopment if it werent for the fact that there are projects there already. I would, however, claim that this rezoning and moving of the projects need not be done in a hurry. There is plenty of empty land (especially in downtown west) that should be built on first before we even think about displacing people that already live in relatively stable situations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 02:18 PM
 
1,710 posts, read 1,774,865 times
Reputation: 1849
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanHamez View Post
I'd agree with the above. All things considered, Columbus Square and that area east of Lafayette would actually be very desirable locations for redevelopment if it werent for the fact that there are projects there already. I would, however, claim that this rezoning and moving of the projects need not be done in a hurry. There is plenty of empty land (especially in downtown west) that should be built on first before we even think about displacing people that already live in relatively stable situations.
I wholly agree. In 2 decades or so, when the city has picked up steam and filled the many empty lots in Downtown west and the North side, then we can worry about that portion next. We need to use everything we have before building more; large portions of the city are already under-utilized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 02:41 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
1,221 posts, read 2,381,061 times
Reputation: 786
How do you know that wealthier people moving to the far north side would push poorer people to the near north side? What's to keep them from going even farther north to the County? The only way lower class people would choose the near north side over North County would be if we could build something there that was more attractive than North County (which, frankly, wouldn't be hard to do).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 04:29 PM
 
1,710 posts, read 1,774,865 times
Reputation: 1849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn10am View Post
How do you know that wealthier people moving to the far north side would push poorer people to the near north side? What's to keep them from going even farther north to the County? The only way lower class people would choose the near north side over North County would be if we could build something there that was more attractive than North County (which, frankly, wouldn't be hard to do).
That's a good point, I don't know what wouldn't make them move to the county as opposed to the city. But where in the county would they go? Would they look for greenfield developments or existing housing? Also, I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming that those residents of the upper north side have jobs in the Lincoln Industrial Park, so they would probably stay somewhere close by to keep their jobs, hence going to near north city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:52 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,266 posts, read 5,758,595 times
Reputation: 4274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn10am View Post
Perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic, but I was referring to 1) the shrinking middle class, and 2) the decline in 2.5-children households. Less money = less to spend on a McMansion on an acre of land. Fewer children = less need for high-quality, free public schools. With most Americans making less money and having fewer (if any) children, an apartment/condo in the City is going to look a lot more desirable than a vinyl box in St. Peters going forward.

It's odd you appear to be celebrating a shrinking middle class, declining incomes and fewer children, but I do agree that is what is happening and appears to be the trend for at least the near future. It's also interesting you seem to throw in the towel on urban school districts, suggesting in time it simply won't matter as people aren't having kids anymore or something.

And while I agree that millennials have a preference for urban living, the data still shows that as people have kids, and a large number still do, they eventually move to the suburbs:

America's Future Cities: Where The Youth Population Is Booming | Joel Kotkin

"But something dramatic happens as children age: They and their parents start moving to the suburbs in massive numbers. In both the 5-to-9 and 10-to-14 cohorts, suburbs easily surpass core cities in virtually every major metropolitan area. So while the popular perception that many downtowns are now overrun by baby strollers is not necessarily an urban myth, it ignores what happens to families as children get older and ambulatory, requiring more space, needing to go to school and more susceptible to getting into trouble.

In addition, Cox notes, not only are there higher concentrations of children in suburbs in the vast majority of metro areas, the overall greater population on the periphery makes the suburbs home to the preponderance of families. This is one reason that most of the fastest-growing counties in the U.S. are either suburbs or exurbs. Roughly 23.9 million children below the age of 14 live in the suburbs of our 51 largest metro areas compared to 8.6 million in the core cities."

Of course, if everyone stops having kids, perhaps you will be proven right, but then it's kind of game over. Hard to sustain society, much less cities, with no children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2014, 02:47 PM
 
446 posts, read 417,554 times
Reputation: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
It's odd you appear to be celebrating a shrinking middle class, declining incomes and fewer children, but I do agree that is what is happening and appears to be the trend for at least the near future. It's also interesting you seem to throw in the towel on urban school districts, suggesting in time it simply won't matter as people aren't having kids anymore or something.

And while I agree that millennials have a preference for urban living, the data still shows that as people have kids, and a large number still do, they eventually move to the suburbs:

America's Future Cities: Where The Youth Population Is Booming | Joel Kotkin

.
Detroit listed at No: 14 for the "Future American Cities". Gives me a lot of hope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2014, 02:55 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
1,221 posts, read 2,381,061 times
Reputation: 786
I didn't mean for it to sound like I was celebrating a shrinking middle class, but I don't necessarily see a decline in childbearing to be a bad thing. It's not necessarily good, either. I see it as more neutral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 12:02 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,266 posts, read 5,758,595 times
Reputation: 4274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn10am View Post
I didn't mean for it to sound like I was celebrating a shrinking middle class, but I don't necessarily see a decline in childbearing to be a bad thing. It's not necessarily good, either. I see it as more neutral.

Not trying to start a fight. I actually root for the the City and believe it is making great strides - I just don't get the urban viewpoint that sometimes sounds like it wants suburbs to crash and burn. That would be a bad thing in my opinion for everyone- city included.

Fertility rates are dropping, so if you think that is a good thing, it's happening. There are consequences to that though that everyone should be aware of - see Japan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 12:10 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,266 posts, read 5,758,595 times
Reputation: 4274
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll0OoO0ll View Post
Detroit listed at No: 14 for the "Future American Cities". Gives me a lot of hope.
You know I've been reading about it and seeing shows about it, including Bourdain's show on CNN.

I think it's great - but question sustainability unless you have families staying put to raise kids there.

I mean hipsters only stay young for so long - then what happens? If there are no young hipsters to follow, what comes next?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:49 PM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top