TO BUILD OR NOT TO BUILD? THAT'S THE QUESTION!

One of the things I have noticed as I travel around the country is that cities which keep their waterfronts and coastal areas open for public use fair well.  Once blighted areas are brought to life by planning for public use as opposed to man-made structures like buildings, hotels or stadiums.


Right now, St. Louis is contemplating whether or not it needs to build a brand new stadium for its privately owned football team.  The City wants to erect it on the banks of the Mississippi.


All sorts of fancy juggling of public and private money investors, taxes and bonds and commercial
reasons, not to speak of football fans are pushing to "prove" the soundness of the undertaking. Yet, I hear no discussion nor do I see any planning to keep the great Mississippi Riverfront easily accessible
for public use and enjoyment.


When I questioned an urban planner about this omission I was told, "we do have a walkway and bicycle path planned around the structure,"  and then was told of the "do ability" of raising the money and the dollar benefits of a new stadium..


Whether or not the move to build a new stadium makes sense at time when the City has such great need in other areas of daily life is yet another question seemingly not taken too seriously.


But I do know that the benefits of public, year around access to the Country's, if not the world's, great River should at least be a part of the decision making process in determining whether or not to build
a football stadium on the banks of the Mississippi.


Yet, I hear no discussion nor do I see any alternative plan to keep the great Mississippi Riverfront
easily, and invitingly accessible to visitors and the public alike.


Are we asking the right question in our soliloquy "to build or not to build a Football Stadium?"