For years, local leaders have called for a program to assist with land assemblage in distressed communities. Yesterday, the state of Missouri moved one step closer to making that concept reality.
The current version of the plan calls for local control over approval of development plans. How should the city maximize its potential with this opportunity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Michael Allen says there needs to be a preservation plan for historic buildings. He says there are hundreds of them in the Blairmont area. What if the Mayor supports demolition?
The area needs good planning, one that balances the needs for development--of all types--and for public input and process. One need not revisit the entire 5th Ward planning process, but something more realistic, more focused and more driven by realities. Only with a plan can stakeholders, residents and political leaders weight the goals of the potential Blairmont project, unseen as it is.
The last comment brings up an interesting point about the need for planning. However, "planning" means a lot of different things to different people.
There are lots of "urban planners" who are more meeting facilitators, bringing people together for meetings, putting ideas down on paper, and then feeding back to the participants some composite of what the group discussed.
Others combine the idea of planning and architecture, drawing pretty urban scale conceptual designs. Frequently, market economics are left out of the discussion.
Perhaps there is a market for new construction of suburban-styled housing, with front facing garages. Would that outcome fit the "need for planning" concerns of urbanist progressives?
Further, planning efforts are expensive. Who pays? What if Mckee would cover the cost, and let the public run the planning process. Would he be willing to build according to such an independent plan?
Or, what if McKee is more proactive, announcing his plans for a specific project. Then is there any further need for planning?
There are many in the St. Louis area who are "meeting'd" and "planned" out, and want to see action.
The city should look at creating a new process that involves citizens and that lays down some guidelines for developers. San Francisco Planning for instance has worked with citizens and developed criteria for what makes a neighborhood great. http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25174
It is clear in reading the Planning site of San Francisco they are light years ahead of anything the political establishment in St. Louis has managed to achieve.
The political process is seriously flawed in St. Louis, until that is corrected St. Louis will continue to be a second rate city.
The failure translates into lost economic growth for St. Louis. Tourists won't come, businesses won't relocate here, St. Louis will not grow with chaos for an urban environment.
Post a Comment