Urban Renewal Policies And Programs

Urban Renewal Policies And Programs

Introduction

North and Central St Louis became completely devastated as a result of the real estate restrictions, exclusionary zoning and political fragmentation. It became characterized by aging infrastructure, substandard housing property and abandoned commercial property, with the only fundamental change in the decades following the WW1 being the terms used to describe the conditions in the city. All stakeholders agreed on the fact that the cure to the devastation of the city was way above the capacity of municipal police power or even the private investors. In essence, it was agreed that St. Louis needed an urban renewal involving a combined effort of private investment, local initiative, state enabling laws, federal money and quasi-public redevelopment corporations.

However, new plans including renovations and expansions were implemented and justified on the basis of the failure of past development schemes. While local boosters may point at varied projects as crucial victories in the efforts for the reclamation of central St. Louis, history gives a completely different picture. Indeed, such projects were dependent on immense public subsidies such as local tax abatements, state tax credits and federal land clearance money. Indeed, the properties would be blighted numerous times for them to qualify for the tax breaks and tax credits, with the larger part of the blight being attributable to consequences or failure of previous development programs. These properties underlined the retreat of the renewal programs or rather the narrowing of its benefits to only a few interests.

In attracting investors, it became necessary that the renovations are not left to private investors. However, only the municipal councils could accomplish this by eliminating the substandard structures and recreating them again. This undoubtedly brought legal tussles and complex procedure and programs. On the same note, a single redevelopment plan could attract numerous discrete yet overlapping programs or contradictory strategies. These programs underwent profusion so as to steer clear of the most troubled neighborhoods of the city. Indeed, the solutions were mainly targeting industrial and commercial developments rather than the residential areas. A similar trend could be seen in the locations of urban expressways, where planners only aimed at servicing the high-class residences without troubling them. The deficiency of agreement on the impacts and goals of moving traffic at a faster pace increased the complications pertaining to planning for expressways. Of particular concern were the deteriorating neighborhoods located at the end of the transformed expressways as it brought questions on whom the renewal of the city targeted. The key focus for the renew of St. Louis was the possibility of attracting high-income residents downtown and eliminating the slum surrounding the City Hall. It also aimed at attracting urban tourism, as well as eliminating the blighted parts of West End. While different projects were initiated and numerous proposals made in an effort to attract federal grants, a large number of them would be turned down on the basis of insufficient civic participation. Even when they were funded, model cities could not be distinguished from earlier renewal efforts. Eventually, the municipal council was blasted for its persistent pursuit of high-end housing and commercial development while ignoring the neighborhoods and residents.

Evidently, the alienation of the poorest neighborhoods weighed negatively on the renewal efforts. Topics that should be examined further revolve around the changes that were made to accommodate the poorest in the city. In addition, it would be imperative that the manner and criteria used to profuse the different programs is examined to determine whether other combinations could have been more applicable.