Prologue

St. Louis is fortunate to possess two great assets: its people and its architecture. These are basic building blocks - foundation stones, if you will, on which the city rests.

Unfortunately, time has not been kind to this foundation. In the name of progress, vast tracts of St. Louis have been demolished. Similarly, over the last fifty years, hundreds of thousands of people have moved their places of residence and their businesses elsewhere. This exodus has eroded supplementary assets, including the tax base, morale, property values and others, and has ushered in a host of ills. The failure of leadership and urban decay have troubled the City of St. Louis.

Flowers of brassica plants are covered with plastic bags to prevent pollen drift in the greenhouses at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. Soulard resident and greenhouse assistant Sylvia Steiner, retired but working part time, helps maintain the plants for the many research scientists and their projects at the non-profit facility. (People Productions photo by Clark Rowley)

At times there have been glimmers of hope. Unfortunately, most have turned out to be like the glitter of fool's gold. Urban renewal, heralded by incredible spasms of destruction, has greatly diminished the architectural heritage of St. Louis. Instead of reversing decline, most efforts, despite enormous expense, have aggravated the spectrum of problems. For example, by diverting resources down dead end streets, the foundation has been further deprived of maintenance and starved of nourishment.

There have been some breakthroughs. The most successful efforts have complemented existing assets and built on the foundation. A program implemented by Soulard provides one example.

The success story that is Soulard begins during a time of promise. The 1976 Tax Reform Act offered a five year accelerated depreciation period for investment in certified historic properties. This legislation was replaced by the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, which provided a 25 percent investment tax credit for rehabilitation expenditures on certified historic structures. These tax incentives only applied to rental and commercial property.

However, the impact of these incentives was dramatic. They boosted investment in other residential assets which did not qualify for the tax breaks and credits. In other words, the owner-occupied side of the residential equation was encouraged and strengthened by all the activity in rental and commercial redevelopment.

But when the investment tax credit program was curtailed in 1986, the party was over. No comparable program was developed to encourage continued residential development and investment. In many neighborhoods the crucial owner-occupant segment of the population never learned to market their assets to attract new owner-occupants.

Rick Soulard, a resident of Petrolia, Ontario, points to the vestigial boundary line on S. 8th Street of the property of Julie Soulard, widow of Antoine Soulard. Julie obtained title to the property in 1836. Rick's side of the family moved from France to Acadia - the Fundy coast of Nova Scotia - in 1636. Antoine Soulard, the namesake of the neighborhood, arrived in St. Louis in 1794 after deserting the French naval service in Martinique because of social upheaval in France. Neighborhood points of interest were spotlighted for Rick and his wife Agnes during a Soulard walking tour. (People Productions photo by Clark Rowley)

Soulard was an exception. Spawned and implemented in 1974, just before the arrival of the hothouse climate created by the lucrative tax breaks and continuing after their demise, the Soulard program focused on fundamentals. Leadership recognized two powerful engines: people and architecture. Harnessing their energy yielded neighborhood revival grounded on an existing foundation. A common sense approach was the hallmark of the rebuilding program: the assets in hand were put to use. In other words, it was recognized that salvation would come from within.

The program was developed and implemented by people interested in boosting the neighborhood, not themselves. After achieving a comfortable level of neighborhood stability, those behind the program quietly dropped out of the picture in order to pursue the rest of their lives. The momentum of their actions, coupled with the rising tide of Mardi Gras festivities, carried the neighborhood forward. In fact, the noise of Mardi Gras obscured the existence of the earlier efforts. The progress and success achieved, as well as the mechanics of the back-to-basics technology, were almost forgotten.

Thus, it was refreshing to see Post-Dispatch columnist Greg Freeman's question in his column of October 3, 1999. He asked of Soulard: "How did the neighborhood turn around?"

In summary, the neighborhood turned around because a small group of people created demand by marketing Soulard. The objective of the marketing program was to attract committed owner-occupants. The successful effort yielded the people necessary to move the neighborhood off the critical list and on its way.

Following is a more comprehensive response to Freeman's key question.

Currently viewing page 1 of 6 pages.

Next page.