Home » Guest »Planning & Design » Currently Reading:

Rollin Stanley Presented “Lessons from St. Louis” at Louisiana State APA Conference in New Orleans

September 22, 2007 Guest, Planning & Design 16 Comments

A guest editorial by Matthew Mourning

On Friday, September 21, 2007, in a city noted for its amalgam of cultures and linguistic influences, Canadian citizen and St. Louis’ Planning and Urban Design Agency Executive Director Rollin Stanley served up generous portions of “aboots” and “pro-grums” to an eager smattering of planners, architects, and students assembled at the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association’s annual conference, this year in New Orleans.

Rollin Stanley In a seminar entitled “Lessons from St. Louis,” Stanley proceeded to showcase a PowerPoint (in a room without audio capabilities) of St. Louis’ ascendancy from contemporary equivalent of the ancient sacked city of Troy to an urban exemplar whose recent success story is, though remarkable, also replicable.

The city of New Orleans has lost more than half of its population since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September of 2005. Many neighborhoods remain partially ruined; water lines tell the story of the storm’s destructive remnants and extant FEMA spray paint on row after row of New Orleans’ flamboyant Creole-style architecture indicates the number rescued from (and the number deceased found within) each splendid but forlorn structure. While it’s hard to believe, certain neighborhoods near the Levee breach have few structures remaining at all. The often spoken of Lower Ninth Ward, including part of the tight knit Holy Cross neighborhood, saw nearly complete devastation. Only concrete slabs and, against odds, a determination to rebuild persist.

Stanley’s concept was rather simple. St. Louis is like you, New Orleans. St. Louis’ “Katrina” is, in fact, worse and more debilitating than yours, a half-century long storm of urban blight, white flight, substandard schools, a bleeding population, deindustrialization, disinvested infrastructure, and abandoned solid brick architecture. Quipped the Canadian at one particularly bleak demonstration of St. Louis’s extant urban problems: “I’ll sell you a 5,000 square foot Victorian for $1,000…and I’ll give you a 10 year tax abatement.”

Stanley’s speech dichotomized St. Louis as a city with unique and monumental challenges which it is now gracefully and astoundingly seeing some triumph over. And while comparing St. Louis’ half-century free-fall to the overnight ravages of Katrina on one of America’s most celebrated cities is not particularly popular with native New Orleanians, it lent the presentation a tone of gravity that captured attentions that in previous presentations had been on the coffee thermostat, complimentary snacks, and conference packet materials. Rollin set out to show New Orleans how it could best lick its own wounds, using the St. Louis example.

The Einsteinian City, the presenter maintained, is the successful one. That is, the energy of a city (E) equals its mass of services (m) times its density, or concentration (c) squared to produce the well-known equation. In this urban planner’s twist on it, maximizing density justifies services and creates an energetic city. The theme that sound urban planning is much like this simple equation was echoed throughout the presentation. At one point, Rollin scrunched up his face and searched for a word—“What do you guys call it—TOD? In Canada, we call it good urban planning.”

In showcasing what he and conference organizers termed the remarkable turnaround of St. Louis, Mr. Stanley had to relate the raw product that he, upon entering the position, had to work with. And so, a wide-angle video shot driving down Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. popped up on the screen and evoked an audible audience reaction. “I know. It’s hell. It’s absolute hell,” Stanley stressed. He augmented the visceral decay with the numbers to back it up—a loss of 508,000 residents since 1950 as well as the loss of stature having been the nation’s fourth largest city in 1900. He even featured a slide of Pruitt-Igoe’s demolition to detail the loss of 3,000 housing units in the City of St. Louis over the course of just a year and a half.

When the audience had been bludgeoned with the point that St. Louis “was crap,” as Stanley concisely summed up the state of the city, he moved on to the strategy that could lift New Orleans out of its storm-induced doldrums. Ironically, Stanley seemed to have done no research on New Orleans, however. He asserted that, unlike St. Louis, New Orleans had no powers of Tax Increment Financing, only to be corrected. He also lent no time to the acknowledgment that New Orleans too had been losing a considerable portion of its own population pre-Katrina and suffered from an as-bad or worse crime rate as St. Louis for the last decade.

He included all of the expected topics: building diversity, improving education, thinking regionally, increasing density, and introducing new and improved transit options. Up until this point in the presentation, Stanley was engaging, energetic, witty, and, most importantly, rather accurate. In discussing St. Louis’ climb upward, however, he mentioned in passing that he and Mayor Slay had proven and continue to prove themselves panaceas to past planning blunders and even to urban blight itself. In one of his strategy areas, leveraging historic resources, Stanley appropriately pointed out that the state of Missouri is the leader in the nation with its generous historic tax credits program. Further, St. Louis has proven a tremendous beneficiary. But Rollin depicted these tax credits as his own tool towards selling St. Louis’ venerable but dilapidated beauties. He made the Mayor and himself seem ardent preservationists, salvaging inimitable structures that once fell to the wrecking ball of urban renewal. Homer G. Phillips Hospital was one of his examples of the city’s (and his own) recent reclamations—while in the next breath he appeared frustrated that the city had to resort to eminent domain to demolish a row of historic (but, to him, “unmarketable”) Ville shotgun houses. A slide bragging of new development in the low-income Ville projected the image of suburban style homes (far set backs, vinyl clad) that stayed on the screen only long enough to perhaps convince the audience that this was some collection of New Urbanism or HOPE VI pastel housing units that New Orleans itself has seen popping up in place of outmoded low-rise public housing.

And on the note of historic preservation, I have to ask, did Rollin Stanley protest the infamous demolition of the Century Building for a parking garage (quite sardonically dubbed the “Garage Mahal” by embittered opponents of the garage that is said to draw its “architectural inspiration” from the marble clad turn of the century mid-rise it replaced)? What about the wholesale clearance of the McRee Town neighborhood, part of which rested in a local historic district? Or the erosion of the last remaining fabric of the Bohemian Hill neighborhood for strip center shopping? Ongoing demolitions within the historic districts of Hyde Park and Murphy-Blair/Old North St. Louis? The mysterious destruction by Bobcat of the rear corners of buildings in McKee’s targeted neighborhoods of St. Louis Place and JeffVanderlou?

To his credit, Stanley did belabor the point that he was a progressive in a decidedly backward city and state. He expressed disillusionment that Walgreens felt it needed front parking lots to develop urban sites and that fast food restaurants required drive-thrus. “If you can’t get out of your damn car for a hamburger, something’s wrong,” he remarked to the delight and applause of the crowd. He also attacked the stature of planners in St. Louis, saying, “In Canada, you can’t make noises with your armpit without going to a planner first. In Missouri, they shoot ‘em [planners].”

In a strategic point entitled “Implement Big Ideas,” he used the Chouteau Lake project (spearheaded by McCormack Baron Salazar) to offer up but one of St. Louis’ big ticket development projects while simultaneously rejecting it as coming too soon. He believed that it would drive up demand for lakeside real estate outside of downtown, causing a shift of development away from the downtown proper that he stated he wanted to see filled up first.

In the “putting it all together” slide, Rollin praised the recently passed Urban Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Act and called it a great opportunity to redevelop large sites in the City of St. Louis (to be brief, or convenient, without a mention of the Paul McKee, Jr. controversy). He lauded the King Louis Square development (whose photo on the slide, I would note, did not reveal the “mullet” style brick-in-front, vinyl-on-the-sides-and-back construction)—“all done with tax credits!” Pointing out that the new Busch Stadium was one of the least publicly subsidized stadium projects in the country, he offered a bit of helpful advice to Cordish, the developers of Ballpark Village. “We need retail and restaurants that don’t exist anywhere else,” he emphasized, even though he called for a Disney-owned ESPN Zone on the site.

In a slide entitled “How We’re Doing,” he tells of increasing population after decades of decline, decreasing poverty, and the city’s coveted “Urban Renewal” award bestowed by the World Leadership Forum in London this past year.

He then closed his presentation and opened it up to questions. I found myself still bothered by an urban planner calling MLK Jr. Blvd. “hell” and championing the demolition of historic structures in what was St. Louis’ premiere African-American neighborhood all within in the same presentation. And so I asked, “How does one interested in historic preservation balance the idea of preservation as economic development with the political and economic pressure to tear down vacant buildings and replace them with buildings that do not even approximate the older structures?” He told me that the City of St. Louis vigorously protects anything in a historic district, which covers 40 percent of the city, and that he can’t reasonably save every structure. After all, he noted, St. Louis needs new construction anyway, and nobody will buy a shotgun house these days. Wow. I suppose New Orleans must really be having a difficult time with recovery if no one will live in a shotgun! And of course, images of demolished Garden District bungalows make me question what this city’s idea of good new development is.

If the city is to recover, and especially to the point where it is felt that it can present an example to even more beleaguered cities, historic preservation and quality infill housing become ever more important focuses. St. Louis’ political structure, its acceptance of Aldermanic fiefdoms and aldermanic courtesy, preclude Stanley’s idea of “good urban planning.” As long as zoning codes reflect the “urban renewal” mentality of the 1940s and beyond, St. Louis, as a city, will see its “renaissance” give way to another protracted “dark age.”

Stanley’s presentation points out a single and incredibly important fact about St. Louis. Indicators haven’t looked this good in decades. Now is time to “think big.” But thinking big doesn’t necessitate large casino developments or more parking garages downtown. Thinking big, in St. Louis, means challenging the status quo rather than working within it. It means that developments such as Southtowne Centre on Kingshighway and Chippewa should be illegal. It means that demolition in Bohemian Hill (too small to be considered a neighborhood, I’m told by many) should be decried and rejected by nearby residents, business owners, and preservationists alike. It means that “Botanical Heights” should conform to setback and spacing guidelines. It means supporting the businesses of Cherokee Antique District, Cherokee Station, Grand South Grand, Euclid, Ivanhoe, Morganford, Macklind, Gravois, and, in the future, the 14th Street Mall, or Crown Village, especially the local ones (and NOT ESPN Zone). It means biking or taking public transit to work.

To borrow from Mayor Slay, “we’ll be a great city” again, but not until we start acting, investing, and building like we deserve to be one.

Matthew Mourning is a St. Louis native, from the Bevo neighborhood, with a bachelor’s degree in Urban Affairs from Saint Louis University. Matthew is a graduate student in the Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Program at the University of New Orleans.

 

Currently there are "16 comments" on this Article:

  1. St. Louis’ “Katrina” is, in fact, worse and more debilitating than yours, a half-century long storm of urban blight, white flight, substandard schools, a bleeding population, deindustrialization, disinvested infrastructure, and abandoned solid brick architecture.

    Yeah, I noticed that too.

     
  2. Jim Zavist says:

    We’ve summarized the problem. We’ve proposed multiple solutions. How do we move beyond just talking?!

     
  3. Becker says:

    That is the most important question posted on this blog in months Jim.

     
  4. Matt Mourning says:

    Jim — thank you for expressing the frustration that I have had being a long-distance resident of St. Louis, as well as one I fostered even while present every day in the city.

    I believe these sorts of changes occur when we make our voices heard to the political and business elite in St. Louis.

    This can occur in many smaller ways. I have consistently emailed and called aldermen and developers with my concerns about various developments. Of course, you are paid only lip service and all the usual answers unless you say something very provocative, in which case you will likely hear from them no more (unless you run a very well-read urbanist blog, that is). These forms of communication are extremely important. When multiplied to become more than one or two individuals, alderpersons and developers who operate on old assumptions or suburban mentalities as to what is good for the city begin to hear a voice of dissent that they cannot ignore. Indeed, if enough voices present, these become more in their minds realizations that we are part of their constituency in considerable numbers.

    The larger form of change will come from, I believe, an “Urban Review” that leaps off the pages of this website. It involves a congregation of urbanists in regular meetings. It involves the production and wider distribution of a newsletter or newspaper dedicated specifically to urban issues. It involves the demonstration to the public, via public meetings or distributed literature, that principles of urbanism only stand to make St. Louis a more pleasant place to live and work.

    Urbanists must become a visible presence in the community. If we can get a writer for the Post-Dispatch that covers urbanist issues, specifically within the city as well, that would go a long way in my opinion. New Orleans has an urban planning writer for its Times Picayune. If we can talk to business owners and residents, on the streets, within our families, and at our workplaces, that helps as well.

    In short, the exact problem is that the rhetoric has not been strong enough just yet to inspire a more comprehensive movement. I think that, at least to some extent, Metropolis St. Louis, Rehabbers Club, the Arch City Chronicle, and yes, Urban Review, have planted the necessary seeds for change. It is up to us, the readers, the consumers, to help make their words reality. A handful of people cannot create effective change. Grassroots movements succeed by a multitude of dedicated individuals.

    So get out there! I want to hear of Urban Review public meetings at Coffee Cartel, MoKaBe’s, hell–the Gateway Mall–organizing newsletters, protests, petitions, emails to aldermen, and most importantly, further meetings. I want to be receiving an e-newsletter by the end of the year! When I return to St. Louis, I can’t wait to join you physically as well as emotionally and electronically.

    [SLP — Yes, it is critical for our “leaders”, be they elected or business, to hear our voices — and they have been.  For example, I’ve heard reports back about the number of calls or emails on a topic covered here increases substantially and it gets noticed.  This is one of the main reasons I am disliked by many — I’m rallying the troops they say.  Attendance at various public meetings has seemed to increase gradually too — a very positive sign that also gets noticed.  The thing is you can’t force people into action — they must be compelled to act.  And be careful what you say such as “A handful of people cannot create effective change.”  This is so not true — that is the basis of grassroots movements!!!  Those meetings and newsletters you are looking for — they’d come from a handful of people.]

     
  5. Jim Zavist says:

    Finding a larger forum in the local print (or TV) is a huge challenge. If I remember correctly, the architecture critic on the Minneapolis paper was recently let go in another round of downsizing. Joanne Ditmer (http://www.denverpost.com/ditmer/) soldiers on at the Denver Post, likely because, for the present, Denver remains a two-dailies town. Like much else in urban America, it boils down to chasing revenues and advertising dollars – the sports page simply sells a lot more papers than the editorial page.

    Locally, Steve is right on involvement. It’s not going to change overnight. It’s the old saying, “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” As more people become aware, energized and involved, change will slooooooowly happen. As more newbies decide to challenge the establishment, even “unsuccessfully”, new voices will be heard – communications do get read, even if they’re not responded to. Contrary voices are heard when they go from none to one to four to twenty-seven to hundreds. And probably the biggest challenge is coming to terms with glacial pace that change requires in the government sector – for better or worse, it ain’t gonna happen overnight . . .

     
  6. I still think there needs to be a ward by ward development watchdog.

     
  7. bigbox says:

    Hey St. Louis…Tired of all the negativity and naysayers? How many urbanists are celebrating the Ballpark Village/Centene deal? Talk about a home run for the City! 1000 more people working downtown and added to the earnings tax rolls! And those workers will increase demand for housing. Fellow urbanists, the city’s glass is way more than half full! Drink it up!!

     
  8. street says:

    There is no way that 40% of the city is included in local or National Register historic districts. Eligible areas yes, but listed? No. Not even close. Try maybe 20%. Maybe. Urbanists should be helping raise money to create more historic districts. That would be putting action to words!

     
  9. bart says:

    great write up.

     
  10. Joe Frank says:

    Quoting “bigbox”:

    “1000 more people working downtown and added to the earnings tax rolls!”

    I assume you’re being sarcastic here… as I understand it, the TIF package somehow includes a 100% earnings tax exemption for Centene.

    [SLP —- Although somewhat related to the idea of lessons from St. Louis I don’t want this discussion to evolve into a Centene discussion.  Tomorrow’s post will focus on Centene.  Back to Stanley and how New Orleans can model themselves after St. Louis…]

     
  11. Jim Zavist says:

    Unfortunately, I’m in the camp that the best way to treat New Orleans is as a write-off. When you have acres and acres of land sitting behind dikes up to 20′ BELOW the mean water level, it’s only a question of when, not if, another major flood/catastrophe will occur. Like plumbers say, it all flows downhill. Much better to buy out affected property owners than to encourage rebuilding. The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over and over . . .

    [SLP — I’m partially in that camp although I plan to visit next Spring so I can see the situation first hand.  Let’s remember that New Orleans had been there for a substantial amount of time without filling up.  Why?  It had no levees but did have natural bog land around it that was a natural protector of the city.  However, our modernization of land has developed natural areas meant to absorb storm/flood waters and we’ve built levees to protect others.  We’ve tried to outsmart mother nature — not a wise move trying to overcome the forces of nature.   Talk about insanity!!!  But you are right, a land assembly tax credit, for example, isn’t going to help them.  I think Rollin needs to spend more time at home working on issues rather than telling people in other cities they should follow our example.]

     
  12. Matt says:

    Yes, Steve, New Orleans was indeed environmentally comprised due to development patterns, not from the outset.

    And if lowlying areas shouldn’t be occupied, how do millions (16 million, perhaps) survive in the below-sea level Netherlands? It’s because their government had the sense to protect the land from a 10,000 year storm while the U.S. determines whether it should in fact protect from a Category 5 storm at all. All that is being discussed is restoring 100 year storm protection, which, with global climate change, may not be 100 year storms at all, but 15 or 10.

    I believe it would be an inestimable cultural loss not to fully rebuild the city. The U.S. can’t afford to lose one of its most unique and urban places.

    If a city like Las Vegas is allowed to grow like a family of bunnies out in a desert with no sustainable long term water source for growth, then surely no one should object to federal funding being provided to protect low-lying New Orleans.

     
  13. Jim Zavist says:

    except that I don’t think that federal funding is paying for Las Vegas’ water infrastructure, any more than it’s paying for growth here . . .

     
  14. LisaS says:

    My mom lived down there for almost a decade and I’m rather familiar with the terrain. N’awlins suffered greatly from the same abandonment we do here even prior to the storm, and I think the city could be contracted to a more sustainable, historical line without compromising its cultural, or commercial integrity. Seriously, a lot of that area near the lake that was flooded–~1950’s and 60’s residential construction, and not among the most attractive examples. The devastation in the NorthShore suburbs (Slidell was particularly hard hit.) was mostly comprised of filled in wetlands and houses literally right on Ponchartrain with no protection. In the end, you can’t fool Mother Nature.

    I’m amused that Rollin Stanley is selling real estate these days. (“I’ll sell you a 5,000 square foot Victorian for $1,000…and I’ll give you a 10 year tax abatement.”) I’m less amused that he’s poking fun at his employer at a national conference even if the criticism is dead on, especially since he stays silent on most of the same issues here at home.

     
  15. Rollin Stanley Presented “Lessons from St. Louis” at Louisiana State APA Conference in New Orleans!! Great article!

     
  16. Love this! This is amazing!Beyond brilliant.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe