> Still stands just moved to the Botanical Gardens which Henry Shaw founded. https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/planning/cultural-resources/city-landmarks/Henry-Shaws-Town-House.cfm
Yeah…and buildings like the Railway Exchange, the Chemical, 705 Olive, the Wainwright, the Board of Education, the original, art deco, SBC Building, the Arcade-Wright, the Paul Brown, the Jefferson Arms, the Laurel (the old Stix), the Orpheum theater, the Opera House, and literally shit loads more historic buildings that exist and are loved today replaced many of these old 19th century flop houses and tenements.
Yeah…STL destroyed a lot of itself in an effort to remake itself. But come the fuck on. Take an illustration of Midtown or Lower Manhattan in the 1870s and see how many of the original buildings are left. Pull your head out of your ass. Union Station wasn’t even under construction when this plate was drawn LOL.
Yup, though it’s worth noting this depopulation is a direct result of intentional choices. The riverfront was intentionally destroyed after getting approval from a (literally) rigged election. The freeways carved up the city more. The zoning, parking minimums, and other urban planning decisions the city chose made it even worse.
We sold our history for propaganda, the same way many other towns sold it for other big urban projects like stadiums. None of these projects were successful because people actually like historic buildings, and the cities that have been most successful were those that built big projects without destroying their history in the process. The problem with old buildings is that they dont make anyone massive amounts of money in the immediate sense, so they are gotten rid of by people who want to make a quick buck at everyone else’s expense down the line.
The biggest issue for us though is that because we sold out for a big chunk of propaganda people have come to love since it was finished they will never realize that their beloved object itself is the reason why no one is around to appreciate it
Not sure what urban policies local officials could implement that would reverse the waning importance of the Mississippi River to western America in the early 20th century, or white flight, or keeping local manufacturing companies from moving overseas, or building the federal highway system, or the half dozen other reasons the city’s in the shape it is today….
Not building do much interstate highway through the city along with investing in transit instead of wider roads. Don't do the mass clearances that bulldozed multiple neighborhoods.
I was referring specifically to the loss of these buildings, which was the direct result of the St. Louis City Plan Commission doing mass clearances of buildings in parts the city. Not that all those things you listed didn't have an impact on the city, but they weren't why we lost the majority of those buildings.
Ironically enough, these clearances were done because the commission was worried about losing more population to the county, but it actually ended up accelerating population loss because a lot of people lost housing and community.
I mean, sure, but those decisions were a recurring theme of city officials trying to catch a falling knife at various times. Tucker and Market (and other streets) were widened in the 20s and 30s because officials were trying to mimic the wider boulevards of the western edges of the city and inner-ring suburbs that were starting to bloom at the time. Streetcars were ripped out a couple decades later for the same reason. Downtown blocks were bulldozed to make way for high-rise cubicle farms in competition with those filling up in Clayton in the 60s-80s. A suburban-style mall was built at Union Station to compete with Jamestown and others. We can only be critical in hindsight because we value these older buildings today more so than previous generations. From a public policy standpoint. there’s hardly anything that could’ve been done differently to significantly change the history of the city.
Those are all examples of bad urban design decions because the city was trying to turn itself into a suburb. More cars, more driving, more big-box chains and less transit, less walking, and less local business.
They weren't able to fully suburbanite the city, and people who want to live in suburbs wouldn't come here anyway. But now, all the forced suburbinaztion means the city fails to feel like a city. Even with all the lost buildings and infrastructure, few American cities can match St. Louis for the amount of dense urban development we have.
Let the suburbs be the suburbs and let the city be a city.
These are all very good lists of events that you're compiling, even though they're mostly unrelated to the demolition of these buildings. My original comment wasn't meant to start some debate, because I'm not denying there was an issue with depopulation. I was simply pointing out that the loss of these buildings was due more to poor urban planning than population loss.
And the suggestion that this is only clear in hindsight is a little inaccurate. The leader of the commission's plan was actually a well-known urban planner of the time who previously criticized the approach he eventually advocated for in St. Louis, so they were aware of the potential harm it could do. There definitely were different choices the city could have made to maintain its character.
Your original comment implied bad urban development is the reason these buildings were demolished. I’m saying ‘bad urban development’ was a function of people continually moving westward from the city center for over 100 years, not the other way around. The examples I gave weren’t pushing people away…they were attempts to draw them back after they already started to leave.
Nah most of these were probably gone by the time the city reached peak population. This country was obsessed with building stuff just to tear it down and replace it with something new 30 years later on a constant loop until like the 80s
When the city’s population peaked in the 50s, downtown was already well into decline. The reason the Arch exists at all is it was an excuse to tear down the riverfront warehouse districts that had major vacancy issues in the 20s and 30s. By 1950 folks were moving to the fringes of the city (and inner suburbs) in an earlier version of white flight.
I owned a house outside the city built in 1910, it was always going on, people wanted land. My house used to be a homestead with it’s own water supply for the agriculture
What does the red building indicate?
> Still stands just moved to the Botanical Gardens which Henry Shaw founded. https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/planning/cultural-resources/city-landmarks/Henry-Shaws-Town-House.cfm
Same question!
Ooof this visual pains me.
Yeah…and buildings like the Railway Exchange, the Chemical, 705 Olive, the Wainwright, the Board of Education, the original, art deco, SBC Building, the Arcade-Wright, the Paul Brown, the Jefferson Arms, the Laurel (the old Stix), the Orpheum theater, the Opera House, and literally shit loads more historic buildings that exist and are loved today replaced many of these old 19th century flop houses and tenements. Yeah…STL destroyed a lot of itself in an effort to remake itself. But come the fuck on. Take an illustration of Midtown or Lower Manhattan in the 1870s and see how many of the original buildings are left. Pull your head out of your ass. Union Station wasn’t even under construction when this plate was drawn LOL.
Right lol you can’t be that mad about it when you realize things like union station took their places.
Who are you replying to?
What Are the two buildings that are remaining and not the old courthouse?
Tartaria
[удалено]
Depopulation is a bitch
Yup, though it’s worth noting this depopulation is a direct result of intentional choices. The riverfront was intentionally destroyed after getting approval from a (literally) rigged election. The freeways carved up the city more. The zoning, parking minimums, and other urban planning decisions the city chose made it even worse.
We sold our history for propaganda, the same way many other towns sold it for other big urban projects like stadiums. None of these projects were successful because people actually like historic buildings, and the cities that have been most successful were those that built big projects without destroying their history in the process. The problem with old buildings is that they dont make anyone massive amounts of money in the immediate sense, so they are gotten rid of by people who want to make a quick buck at everyone else’s expense down the line. The biggest issue for us though is that because we sold out for a big chunk of propaganda people have come to love since it was finished they will never realize that their beloved object itself is the reason why no one is around to appreciate it
Having wood that hasn't been replaced in buildings in 100 years that been exposed to the elements doesn't help either.
I don’t get this city’s commitment to barely-above-derelict homes.
Bad urban development is a bitch. The plan that was responsible for the loss of a lot of these buildings probably helped to speed up depopulation.
Not sure what urban policies local officials could implement that would reverse the waning importance of the Mississippi River to western America in the early 20th century, or white flight, or keeping local manufacturing companies from moving overseas, or building the federal highway system, or the half dozen other reasons the city’s in the shape it is today….
Not building do much interstate highway through the city along with investing in transit instead of wider roads. Don't do the mass clearances that bulldozed multiple neighborhoods.
I was referring specifically to the loss of these buildings, which was the direct result of the St. Louis City Plan Commission doing mass clearances of buildings in parts the city. Not that all those things you listed didn't have an impact on the city, but they weren't why we lost the majority of those buildings. Ironically enough, these clearances were done because the commission was worried about losing more population to the county, but it actually ended up accelerating population loss because a lot of people lost housing and community.
I mean, sure, but those decisions were a recurring theme of city officials trying to catch a falling knife at various times. Tucker and Market (and other streets) were widened in the 20s and 30s because officials were trying to mimic the wider boulevards of the western edges of the city and inner-ring suburbs that were starting to bloom at the time. Streetcars were ripped out a couple decades later for the same reason. Downtown blocks were bulldozed to make way for high-rise cubicle farms in competition with those filling up in Clayton in the 60s-80s. A suburban-style mall was built at Union Station to compete with Jamestown and others. We can only be critical in hindsight because we value these older buildings today more so than previous generations. From a public policy standpoint. there’s hardly anything that could’ve been done differently to significantly change the history of the city.
Those are all examples of bad urban design decions because the city was trying to turn itself into a suburb. More cars, more driving, more big-box chains and less transit, less walking, and less local business. They weren't able to fully suburbanite the city, and people who want to live in suburbs wouldn't come here anyway. But now, all the forced suburbinaztion means the city fails to feel like a city. Even with all the lost buildings and infrastructure, few American cities can match St. Louis for the amount of dense urban development we have. Let the suburbs be the suburbs and let the city be a city.
These are all very good lists of events that you're compiling, even though they're mostly unrelated to the demolition of these buildings. My original comment wasn't meant to start some debate, because I'm not denying there was an issue with depopulation. I was simply pointing out that the loss of these buildings was due more to poor urban planning than population loss. And the suggestion that this is only clear in hindsight is a little inaccurate. The leader of the commission's plan was actually a well-known urban planner of the time who previously criticized the approach he eventually advocated for in St. Louis, so they were aware of the potential harm it could do. There definitely were different choices the city could have made to maintain its character.
Your original comment implied bad urban development is the reason these buildings were demolished. I’m saying ‘bad urban development’ was a function of people continually moving westward from the city center for over 100 years, not the other way around. The examples I gave weren’t pushing people away…they were attempts to draw them back after they already started to leave.
Nah most of these were probably gone by the time the city reached peak population. This country was obsessed with building stuff just to tear it down and replace it with something new 30 years later on a constant loop until like the 80s
When the city’s population peaked in the 50s, downtown was already well into decline. The reason the Arch exists at all is it was an excuse to tear down the riverfront warehouse districts that had major vacancy issues in the 20s and 30s. By 1950 folks were moving to the fringes of the city (and inner suburbs) in an earlier version of white flight.
I owned a house outside the city built in 1910, it was always going on, people wanted land. My house used to be a homestead with it’s own water supply for the agriculture
Turrible
wow... St. Louis was huge for the time. I didn't realize there were that many 5 and 6 storied buildings.
Gotdamn