Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
No. Who said that? lol.
If downtown St. Louis was a stronger core then East St. Louis land would be worth more by virtue of proximity. Basic economics.
|
Maybe if St. Louis was growing, but in its current state it wouldn't make much of a difference. The central corridor is immediately south from some of the most blighted and vacant neighborhoods in the city. The fabled spillover has yet to happen.
To give you an example, the gun totting couple on Portland Place, the private drive with multi million dollar homes, is about 5 blocks away from the abject poverty that's immediately north of Delmar Blvd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
St. Louis doesn't need to be on the East Coast to build the intrinsic value of its land. It needs to ditch the shitty land use policies.
|
You'll have no arguments from me there, but again, East St. Louis isn't St. Louis either.
ESL was having race riots as early as 1917 and it experienced white flight on an unimaginable level from the 50s onward. Its industry split off into smaller surrounding municipalities, such as Sauget (originally named
Monsanto), and they then incorrectly bet on the highways bringing business back to its downtown. This in reality only accelerated the decline.
Today ESL is a shell of its former self, but the cities sitting pretty up on top of the adjacent hills and bluffs are going through their own problems as the money moves further east.
Also, the contamination part isn't wrong. Hell, the government just created a superfund site in ESL on the grounds of an old aluminum plant that was torn down in the 50s. It's taken them 70 years to do something.