RSS Feed
- Green City
- Brunette Ambition
- Continued Continued
- Looking For A Silver Lining
- Insane
- Continued
- The Arch Never Happened
- Take Notice
- Over It
- The View From South Side National Bank
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- October 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
A few years ago, Channel 9 aired a program chronicling the history of East St. Louis...I was totally intrigued. East St. Louis, from what I understood, was pretty much doomed from the start. With a riot, industry setting up shop just outside the city limits providing no tax base for the city and inept leaders, East St. Louis' current state was completely predictable.
Anyway, so what if East St. Louis was an actual part of our City? Would that have helped East St. Louis any? Would the Mississippi be lined on both sides with tall buildings and development today had St. Louis straddled both sides of the river? Would East St. Louis still be in a state of decline like some sections of the city or would it be in a state of rebirth...like other sections of St. Louis. Who knows...but it's kind of interesting to think about.
If all of St Louis were part of Illinois, it would be much worse than it is today. Chicago gets all the money and political power in Illinois and that isn't likely to change.
East St Louis shouldn't really even be there. Isn't it all far below the levee levels of St Louis? If there were tall buildings on both sides there would be a huge levee on both sides squeezing the river into a narrow and destined to fail path.
My solution? A one mile wide park on the Illinois side to allow the river to expand when she's swollen and give us something pleasant to look at instead of that Cargill plant. Also allows for migratory birds a great place to rest and give us a glimpse of what the great North-South migrations of the past used to look like.
Hell, I-70 should have been placed over there with numerous access bridges dumping people onto city streets like Manhattan so North St Louis and Soulard/Benton Park wouldn't have been carved up to make room for highways.
It's an intriguing question. I'm not sure it would have made that much difference, other than that the industries would have had no particular reason to relocate over there from St. Louis. Maybe they would still have set up the company towns, while the residential base would just be in StL.
There were a few skyscrapers in downtown East St. Louis -- the Spivey Building is still there, rotting away. But Collinsville Avenue and vicinity was at one time its own bustling downtown district.
As for the flood plain thing -- one of the major fiscal stressors on the city government for decades was the cost of the municipal debt required when the main streets in and around downtown were raised above flood levels! Yes, much of ESL is protected by flood walls, flood gates, and levees; but gradually, buildings in downtown ESL were built up taller to reach the higher street level. It's fascinating, but also kind of crazy.
By
Bill Streeter, at
2:21 PM
Funny question. I always wondered what St. Louis would be like if it were all part of Illinois. Wishful thinking on my part I guess having come from Illinois and know it to be a much more liberal and progressive state than Missouri (which is not to say it's perfect) I really doubt that the fate of East St. Louis would be much different if it were in Missouri. It might have even turned out worse.