|
I've been living in St. Louis for most of my teenage, early adulthood years (I'm 23). I'm pretty well-traveled, but I was in Chicago this past weekend with friends and we drove through some "bad" parts of Chicago (Humboldt Park), which looked like what many "good" neighborhoods in St. Louis look like. It may have been a little rough, but most of the buildings seemed in decent shape.
By contrast, much of St. Louis City, especially on the North Side is filled with abandoned housing, vacant lots and really dilapidated buildings. Much of North St. Louis looks like New Orleans post-Katrina. And much of the rest of the city even on the relatively middle-class South side is a little dilapidated too.
Is St. Louis unusually blighted or is the blight in St. Louis comparable to the blight in other former industrial Midwestern cities? I know Detroit is bad, and I know that even in Chicago, there are areas like Englewood that are really rough, but, again, is St. Louis unusual?
(BTW, don't consider this me ragging on St. Louis - there are lots of great neighborhoods in the city and, unlike Detroit, we actually have a relatively large middle-class within the city, along with plenty of thriving spots - it's just that it's spotty and the North Side is relatively poor; though there are middle-class neighborhoods of the North Side, the segregation line is very strict, with virtually no non-blacks living in the Northern half of the city and there's a huge amount of blight spread throughout the North Side.)
|