Letter Streets / Tree Streets

On a recent walk around Belleville, Illinois, I noticed something wonderful about the streetgrid.

Rather than numbering the streets away from Main Street, Belleville uses letters.  Not only that, but they have a Church Street, which is amazing because downtown St. Louis used to have lettered streets and a Church Street before Missouri became a state.  Isn't it interesting that Belleville also has a Walnut Street?

Here's an account from St. Louis historian James Neal Primm,

On July 1, 1826, the board renamed the streets.  Their French names, still current with older residents, had already been replaced in general usage by numbers for the north-south streets (except for First--usually called Main).  With only a few exceptions, the French had not named the east-west streets.  After 1815, those in the original village with Market the point of origin, had been designated North or South A, B, C, and so on.  Mayor Lane and Aldermen Henry Von Phul and Thomas McKnight, all Pennsylvanians, persuaded the board to adopt the unimaginative Philadelphia system of naming streets for trees.  Northward from Market (the only street reflecting its origins), the east-west streets were Chestnut, Pine, Olive, Locust, Vine, Laurel, Prune, Oak, Cherry, Hickory, Pear, and Willow.  South of Market were Walnut (Rue de la Tour [Tower]), Elm, Myrtle, Spruce, Almond, Poplar, Plum, Cedar, Mulberry, Lombard, Hazel, and Sycamore.  The olive was not even a native tree, and several of the others had never grown near St. Louis.  The recently completed street on the river side of Laclede's front lots was named Front; the remaining north-south streets were First (La Rue Principale [Main]), Second (Rue de l'Eglise [Church]), Third (Rue des Granges [Barn]), and so on to the west.  No doubt some of the French and older Americans regretted these changes, but the "go-ahead" spirit had little use for the relics of the past.  ------ Lion of the Valley, page 122

If Belleville was founded in 1814 and St. Louis adopted the lettered streets theme in 1815, who influenced who? 

Regardless, here's Philadelphia today,

To quote wikipedia:  "The major east-west streets in William Penn's original plan for the city [were given] the names of trees: from north to south, these were Vine, Sassafras, Mulberry, High (not a tree), Chestnut, Walnut, Locust, Spruce, Pine, Lombard and Cedar. (Sassafras, Mulberry, High and Cedar have since been renamed to Race, Arch, Market [the main east-west street downtown] and South.)"

For the most part, St. Louis has managed to keep its numbered streets because renaming a few would wreck the whole system.  That's true of most cities with numbered streets (NYC, KC, Philly, etc.).  New York has consistently numbered lettered avenues as well.

Tree streets in St. Louis and Philadelphia have not lasted over time.  Where are Vine, Prune, Oak, Cherry, Pear, Willow, Elm, Myrtle, Almond, Mulberry, Lombard, Hazel, and Sycamore?  Hickory, Plum, and Cedar are now obscure. 

One tree street name is actually coming back. 

The Laurel Apartments at the Mercantile Exchange bear the name that Washington Avenue used to bear.  Is that intentional?  Apparently yes,  they say so right on their website.

Edward Jones Dome / Faurot Field

I'd like to commend Post-Dispatch reporter Matthew Hathaway for his recent article, Dome deadline is bearing down on city.  Honestly its bearing down on the whole region and state, but the city especially.  Hathaway does a great job of setting the historical context.  Here's the stand-out quote,

"The Dome was largely financed with $256 million in revenue bonds, and the repayment of that 30-year debt will be $720 million. Every year, Missouri spends $12 million to pay off the debt, and St. Louis and St. Louis County both pay $6 million annually."

But while we still have another ten years to go on our debt, we're facing the tough position of having to spend twice as much as we did originally just to keep the team.  New NFL stadia cost as much as three times what St. Louis paid for the dome originally.  We haven't paid off our last effort, so paying for the next is troubling.

In response to Mr. Hathaway's article, Alex Ihnen at NextSTL.com posted a study about professional sports teams having no net economic benefit for metro regions.  In fact, with the large annual debt they create in public financing, they could be viewed as dragging cities like St. Louis down.  His conclusion:  Does St. Louis need an NFL team?  Obviously they have a role to play in a city's brand and marketing, local pride, and so on as well, but the economics is hard to ignore.

Should a private team be dipping into public funds for a new stadium?
Are we fans of teams that constantly threaten to move in order to extort our local governments?
St. Louis needs to step out of this cycle.  It isn't healthy, and it isn't a winning solution.

Contrast and compare St. Louis to a considerably smaller market,

St. Louis Rams, founded in 1936, moved a couple times before arriving in St. Louis in 1995, and might move again in 2015.  Play in a below-average stadium paid for by taxpayers with a capacity of 66,965.  Represent a metro of nearly three million people.

Missouri Tigers, formed in 1890, never moved, never will move.  Play in a stadium with a lot of history expanded slowly over a century with a capacity of 71,004.  Play in a city with only about 100,000 people surrounded by farm land.

Is it unfair to compare a college team to a professional team?  Why?  Which draws the larger crowd?  Which costs more?  Which does more for the community? 

When the Rams leave, we'll have an empty stadium rotting away downtown.  If a college team shared their stadium, we'd at least have an alternate use and a caretaker for the building.  More than that, college teams get donations.  Saint Louis University's Chaifetz Arena was given $12 million from a single alum.

I'm sure it's an unpopular proposal, but why not build a stadium for a local university if we build a stadium at all?  Let them share.  Look at the way the Rams used to dress,

Rams colors used to be Saint Louis University colors.  SLU is a division I school in the middle of the city, and they don't have a football team.  What if they did?  The next publically financed stadium should be donated to SLU (or some other school), partly paid for by SLU, and maintained by donations and endowments from the community.  The Rams can pay some too, and they can share.  Then later if the Rams choose to go away or demand a better stadium, the university can add their weight and funds to the conversation.

Where would one put a SLU football stadium?  How about here?

There's plenty of room around the new Grand Viaduct to build on air rights above the tracks and make the bridge into a normal street.  Depending on what's happening with the plans for the Chouteau Greenway, bike trails could be worked in too.  The important thing, again, is to not do what Nashville did.  If a stadium could be built above the MetroLink station, then it really ought to be oriented to take in the view of downtown in one direction and BJC in the other, just like Faurot Field is oriented to view Columbia.

Or maybe UMSL or SIUE could be the holders of the stadium.  It doesn't matter as long as it's a public body that can use and maintain such a structure and fundraise to improve it.  The CVC has a good relationship with the Edward Jones Dome, but they have no long-term interest in it as a football stadium.  It could just as easily be converted to basketball or perhaps the seats could be removed, a floor put in, and two levels of trade show space could be created for the CVC's boat shows and other conferences.

The often repeated line is, "NFL teams only use their stadiums 8 days a year, so what are we supposed to do with them the rest of the time?"  Adding another team is one option.  Why not add a soccer team too?  NFL and MLS combinations are common.  SLU has a pretty good soccer team.