July 1, 2022

Pujols utilizing Cardinals his marriage just isn’t a issue for public debate and more prime letters | Letters to the editor

Regarding Greg Michaud’s guest column “Population decline and the upcoming of St. Louis neighborhoods” (April 9): As an architect, I think evaluating St. Louis and Kansas Metropolis on the concern of population gain and decline is invalid simply because of the significantly diverse land locations of the towns. The region of Kansas Town is 300 square miles, together with unurbanized areas where by improvement is uncomplicated. The housing current market is potent, contributing to the city’s populace development.

The St. Louis land location is 70 sq. miles and is urbanized. Redevelopment is much much more tough in St. Louis Town than the urbanization contributing to Kansas City’s progress.

Although essential, neighborhood engagement is not a panacea for populace decline in St. Louis. Sector things, present land ownership, more mature developing stock, requires of recent people of redevelopment locations, economic, political and environmental disorders make redevelopment challenging. Several of these issues will be impacted by greater neighborhood engagement.

Ironically, the Fanning University development case in point in the posting supports this argument. It does not illustrate neighborhood engagement’s opportunity to raise population. The greater neighborhood affiliation, the alderman and the developer want to repurpose the constructing for residential units, growing the population. But the adjacent neighbors really do not want that. I guess it relies upon on the definition of “neighborhood” in community engagement. It is intricate, just like all redevelopment initiatives.

William Albinson • University Town