Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
07.28.2008 2:09 pm

Arch cultural companion: Testament to tomorrow

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Arch renderingLet me repeat my prejudices:

I think Sen. John Danforth’s and the Danforth Foundation’s big idea of developing a brilliant cultural institution as a companion to the Gateway Arch — housed in a structure and situated at a place on the Arch grounds to be decided through an international design competition — is thrilling.

I also think this: Altering the Arch grounds will be a hard sell to the National Park Service.

Parks and the people who run them, after all, are about conservation, and that’s as it should be.

But if ever there were a project that should enable parks people to move outside their comfort zone, this would be it:

Danforth would be a first class sponsor. What’s more, the park surrounding the Arch is not hallowed ground, not in the sense of a site with specific archaeological or historic significance such that disturbing the landscape would be sacrilege — such as with Mesa Verde or Gettysburg.

Rather, the Arch grounds is a gathering place that surrounds a symbol (a symbol that happens to be one of the great works of Western architecture and engineering).

What kind of cultural institution could be sufficiently sublime and noble to complement and further uplift that symbol?

The idea most widely circulated is a museum devoted to American migration — a kind of inland Ellis Island. Which is interesting, substantial, sound, and sensible — an idea that fits literally within park’s Westward Expansion theme and should be seen as safe by conservative park planners.

The problem is, it might be too safe. Park planners could say, fine, but there’s no special reason it needs to sit on the Arch grounds. Build it downtown.

Maybe the best chance to achieve an energizing and liberating Arch 2.0 is to not be so literal.

Let’s go deep, like Eero Saarinen went deep.

Let’s consider a use that so closely and directly draws its inspiration from the Arch that it demands to be an integrated part of the larger National Park enterprise.

Here’s what occurs to me:

The Gateway Arch rose from stirrings of history. But it is a quintessentially forward- looking symbol.

As generations of St. Louis school children know (thanks to Charles Guggenheim’s film documentary) the Arch is a “monument to the dream.” It is a symbol that celebrates a staging ground and point of embarkation of one of the great movements in human history, of peoples from throughout the world provisioning and charting their course before heading across a vast unsettled continent at great personal risk to start new lives.

How could a cultural companion to the Gateway Arch build on that forward-looking epoch, and possibly itself become a great staging ground and point of embarkation?

Before moving back to St. Louis this summer, I had spent six years in Dayton, Ohio. There I heard many people speak of a memorable event in Dayton’s community life. It had occurred a few years before I arrived, but to me was moving in the retelling.

Dayton is an Air Force town, home to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In November 1995, Wright Pat was the site of the conference that led to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Accords.

The local community did not have a detailed understanding of the political issues, but it knew the importance of the negotiations and was captivated as Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark helped broker a deal between Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and political leaders of Croatia and Bosnia.

The participants convened at the base behind closed doors. But they took some meals around town, and some were said to be moved by the local outpouring of good will.

Here’s what Holbrooke told the Dayton Daily News on the first anniversary of the accords:

“We came here, now famously, almost by accident, but we could not have found a better place,” said the 55-year-old Holbrooke, who served as a diplomat in Vietnam, wrote a volume of the Pentagon Papers, worked on the opening of diplomatic relations with China and served as ambassador to Germany in a career that began in 1962.

“We came here and found something extraordinary, from the signs in the windows to the lighted candles along the roadways,” Holbrooke told the audience at the banquet, sponsored by the Dayton Council on World Affairs.

The UD campus ministry recreated some of that atmosphere with a vigil of 45 candles outside Kennedy Union as the diplomats and civic leaders arrived for the dinner.

“The spirit of Dayton really did matter,” he said…

Asked afterward if the war will resume, Holbrook showed some of the brusk frankness for which he is known.

“The war ended here in Dayton, it will not resume next year,” he said.

Those three weeks became a part of the community’s identity.

So as we survey in our minds the Arch grounds and consider what else might belong there, perhaps rather than Smithsonian, Williamsburg or Ellis Island, maybe we could think Camp David, Dumbarton Oaks or Bretton Woods — only better.

This cultural companion to the Gateway Arch could be a place where serious people seek to meet and make ambitious advancements at what in a sense would be a gateway toward peace and other forms of social progress — all in the shadow of Saarinen’s masterpiece.

A permanent endowment could help pay costs of travel and lodging of participants. The region’s great universities could combine with counterparts throughout the world to help organize such conferences.

The structure designed as part of the international competition would include not just a meeting forum but a permanent place to curate public exhibits — exhibits that explain the forthcoming conference or the one just past, with a hall devoted to presenting evidence of the best and most promising things to have transpired at this cultural gateway. The conference space would be surrounded by theater seating, enabling ordinary people to become witnesses to progress, if not history.

Fully realized there would be nothing else quite like it. Just as there is nothing else quite like the Gateway Arch. It could be the kind of place that people would take that extra day to see and experience — a place from which local and world citizens walk the same path to the Arch, sensing the inspiration it offers to advance human possibilities.

(Pictured: Eero Saarinen, Bloomfield Hills, Mich. Drawn by J. Henderson Barr. Conceptual scheme for Jefferson National Expansion Memorial 1947 colored pencil on tracing paper. )

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
5 comments

There already an effort to build an architectural museum here (see http://www.buildingmuseum.org). The project is cool and distinctly local. And it invokes the sprectre of the old riverfront district that the Arch replaced. Rather than re-invent the wheel — which is rather all too common in museum/cultural instituation planning — why not take an underground project and propell it to the world’s eyes as testament to the great architecture of the region?

— Jackson
3:33 pm July 28th, 2008

Mr. Roth: I am writing from my home in Arkansas, but clam the right to my opinion regarding JNEM (’the Arch’), because,as a unit of the National Park System, it belongs to ALL Americans.
I read with interest your July 29 comment regarding the proposal for a ‘cultural institution as a companion to the Gateway Arch. Eloquent though your style may be, I am far from convinced that such a scheme would be appropriate in a National Park System Unit.
You are correct that Park Managers are “about conservation, and that’s as it should be”. Then, however you seem to suggest that any resistance to this idea would represent simply blind opposition, or lack of vision. Not so. Experienced Park Managers know that such ‘visionary ideas’ for use of these protected lands arrive with alarming regularity, pushed by well-meaning individuals or organizations. Seldom do they meet the high standards of ‘National Significance’. Opposition to this idea is not confined to National Park Service (NPS) managers. Quite literally, millions of citizens who value and support the Parks, raise strong resistance to these types of proposals and their views will be heard. The NPS is presently developing a General Management Plan to guide the future of this site. Public comment is being solicited, and will be given full consideration. I’m sure Senator Danforth and his supporters have sufficient resources and influence to assure that their propasal is carefully evaluated. I hope they are not successful. Some have suggested that this “idea” is actually intended as a ‘monument’ to the good Senator, and/or as an economic boost to the local business community. I hope not! First, those are not legitimate purposes for the Parks. (This one contributes significantly to the economy of St. Louis already) Not only would it have a negative impact on thie National Memorial, I am confidant that it would eventually be an embarrassing ‘white elephant’, unworthy of the Senator’s fine record of service to our Nation.
I do, also, take issue with your assertions about ‘hallowed ground’. You use that term a bit too casually. I would prefer to reserve that word for use as Lincoln seems to have meant it, for places where people made the ultimate sacrifice. All ground does not have to be ‘hallowed’, however, to be deemed ‘nationally significant’ and deserving of protection under NPS standards. No doubt there are parcels of land, for example, within Gettysburg National Military Park, where NO troops fought or died, but we certainly would not condone deleting them or converting them for some obscure purpose such as this one. The grounds surrounding the Arch are an integral part of the design. They require protection and care if they are to remain a complementary setting for the Gateway Arch. Further, they represent some of the most valuable open, greenspace in the inner city–a city with little such space to spare.
Frankly, it appears that Senator Danforth, his Foundation and supporters strain to make ANY case that some structure, ‘cultural institution’ or museum could complement the brilliant, Saarinen design. The proponents seem to be saying “trust me, we have a great and glorious IDEA. You will have to await the result of an international competition, to know what it is, but we already KNOW it must be ON the JNEM grounds”. Mr.Roth, that simply fails the ‘red-face’ test. And, yes of course, even if some such idea should prove desirable and feasible, it would still be necessary to show that it would not work as well OUTSIDE the boundary–particularly considering the fact that quite suitable lands are readily available immediately North of the JNEM boundary, WITHIN VIEW OF THE ARCH. What is there about actually being ON the Memorial’s grounds that make the idea work ONLY there? Or, would it not be possible to work with NPS toward some cooperative operation at the existing underground museum, since both entities would presumably be telling the same story.
I have herd no significant disagreement regarding the need for improved connections between the JNEM grounds, the river and the city. I suggest that much more practical and positive gains could be made with focus on that goal.
Mr. Roth, the case for this “idea” has simply not been made. Let’s not start down the ’slippery slope’ of carving out portions of our National Heritage, the National Parks, for abstract, unnecessary and intrusive developments, of unproved value.
We already have “the best idea we ever had”, our Natonal Park System. Let’s protect them first and foremost.
I do plan to transmit a copy of this comment to the NPS for their consideration in the planning process.
Thank you for listening to my views. Don Castleberry

— don c
3:09 pm August 2nd, 2008

Thank you for writing Mr. Castleberry.

If you are the same Don Castleberry whose name appears widely online as a commentator on a wide range of NPS issues, your long career with the park service — including as Midwest Director, a territory which appears to take in the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial — offers a valuable vantage to the process currently underway here in St. Louis.

My piece was a serious proposal, but mainly it was intended to promote public conversation. Some people have contacted me and said they like what I wrote. You evidently didn’t like it, which is fine with me.

But your comments are revealing in ways having to do with process, and which I find concerning.

You are so condescending about what I wrote that you sniff almost audibly when you note how “Experienced Park Managers” are well familiar with “‘visionary ideas’” (quotation marks yours) “that arrive with alarming regularity” (such a bother) pushed by “well-meaning individuals and organizations” (how nice of you to confer good intentions) “for use of these protected lands” (however misplaced those intentions may be).

You tut tut about how “seldom (these ideas) meet the high standards of ‘National Significance.’” by which you imply ordinary citizens are in way over their heads if they think they have the judgment and taste and standards to contribute to this kind of process.

You purport to speak not just for National Park Service Managers, but “quite literally” for “millions of citizens who value and support the Parks” when you say they will rise up and “raise strong resistance to these types of ideas.”

You make a gratuitous, mean spirited, comment about Sen. John Danforth:

“Some have suggested that this ‘idea’ is actually intended as a ‘monument’ to the good Senator, and/or as an economic boost to the local business community,” exclaiming: “I hope not!”

You then attempt to discredit all proponents of the idea that maybe more can be done with Arch grounds, claiming they “seem to be saying ‘trust me, we have a great and glorious IDEA. You will have to await the result of an international competition, to know what it is, but we already KNOW it must be ON the JNEM grounds.’”

That works the other way, Mr. Castleberry.

One could argue that the National Park Service “seems to be saying, ‘trust us, we have great and glorious experience and judgment. You will have to await the result of our confidential planning process to know what it is, but we already KNOW that it must NOT be on the JNEM grounds.”

* * *

The National Park Service solicited my thoughts, along with the thoughts of all other interested citizens, to help it develop a new general management plan for the JNEM.

Since the NPS manages the Arch grounds the advice I offered addresses what I think might belong on the Arch grounds.

The Arch grounds is a fine urban park, a mid-20th century invention built over a 19th century warehouse district.

The NPS should allow for the possibility that it has not been perfected.

The NPS imprimatur does not connote perfection.

The NPS put an ugly utility shed on the south end of the grounds, and an ugly parking garage on the north.

Maybe the world has another Sarrinen who could suggest a more felicitous addition to those grounds. Maybe not.

It is worth recalling that Mr. Sarrinen’s brilliant design came to us through a competition.

I don’t know if your comments reflect the culture and attitude of the NPS, Mr. Castleberry.

If they do, I would be very disappointed, and I would question the agency’s sincerity in soliciting public comment and I would feel that it had wasted my time — and would wonder if even Mr. Sarrinen could have gotten anywhere with today’s “high standard” bearers.

— Eddie Roth
7:09 pm August 2nd, 2008

I was interested to read Mr. Roth’s 8/2 response to my earlier comments. Frankly, I was a bit disappointed that he took my views so negativly and responded with such a personal attack. Here’s why> Yes, I did have a long career with the National Park Service and for 8 years was Director of the Midwest region which includes Missouri, and of course, the JNEM. It is for that reasion that I believe I am qualified to hold an opinion on this issue.
I certainly do not object to him having or stating his. It’s not that I don’t like it, or him, I just disagree. He says he was attempting to promote public conversation, then attacks me for joining the convesation. If he had a way to know them, Mr.Roth would not “sniff” at my characterizaton of the many unsolicited “Ideas” and proposals which crossed my desk in any given year. No, the proponents were not “a bother”, they were sincere (and, usually well-meaning), but the overwelming majority of them did not come close to meeting the high standards for inclusion in our Nation’s National Park System-and they failed. That is the case here, and it should fail. In soliciting public comment on a proposal affecting the sites under their management responsibility, The National Park Service(NPS), and its ‘overseer’, the Department of Interior are scrupulous in assuring that all views are heard and considered. At some point in the process, they do make recommendations and take positions. That time has not yet arrived, for them. It IS the right time for me. It is the Congress of the United States who would finally decide, on behalf of ALL citizens, should the issue progress that far. I’m experienced with that public involvement process, am absolutely convinced that NPS does it as well as anyone, and better than most. My views and comments are my own, presented during this ‘input’ period, and they are informed by both a long-held committment to the National Park Idea, and the experiences I had, while managing the Parks. I’m entitled to that. No, I don’t speak FOR those millions of National Park Supporters, but I know they are out there, ready and willing to work to keep inappropriate uses from creeping in. Probably the one assertion Mr. Roth made with which I most strongly object is that I made a “gratuitous, mean-spirited comment” about Senator Danforth. I did not! In fact, I’ve long been an admirer. While an NPS Senior Manager, I had several occasions to interact with him, in one-on-one discussions. Twice, during those times, I commented to him that I thought he should be our President. I simply think he is on the wrong track here. I prefer to think that he’s motivated by a sincere wish to help his city. Others do feel he is also seeking to put his name on some important place there. I’m sure I’m not the only person to have heard that. I prefer to think, and hope, that is not the case.
NO, Mr. Roth: The National Park Service is NOT saying “we know it must not be on the Memorial grounds”. I AM SAYING THAT! You do a great injustice by claiming that The NPS already has rejected this and that the process is ‘confidential’. NO!, The process is remaining open and NPS is receiving ALL views, as they should. The burden, however, must be on the proponents. It is THEY who are saying they have an “idea” and we, the rest of America, must accept it. Well, I do not accept it.
Of course, NO National Park, or anyplace else I know, is perfect. That’s why we do General Management Plans, periodically. That does not prove, however, that every idea that emerges in those processes is valid or appropriate. MAYBE another Sarranen COULD emerge out of such an effort, maybe that COULD happen in any one of the other 390 NPS units. All kinds of things COULD happen like that, but I hope they don’t. We should have better evidence of need, other than a powerful,(however admirable)ex- Senator’s vague “idea”. Finally, I’m particulalry glad the last comment was made about “NPS culture, and whether Sarranen’s idea would pass muster today. Last week, probably the most admired and respected former Director of the National Park Service, George B. Hartzog, was laid to rest. The same man who, as Superintendent of JNEM, managed and oversaw the creation of the great Gateway Arch. The NPS, embraced that process and made it what it bacame (of course, with the support of many others). That same “culture” of NPS is alive and well, Mr. Roth and, as the perennially, most admired and respected Agency in Government, I think they deserve more trust and respect than you are willing to grant. I seem to recall the beginning of your first commentary in which you acknowledged park people are “about conservation, and that is as it should be”. They ARE! Let’s evaluate ALL suggestions but accept only those that clearly ADD to the Park. I’ve not seen any compelling arguments for that, only scorn and criticism of anyone who disagrees. Disagree, with me if you wish, Mr. Roth but you are wrong to make those claims about NPS. I’m confident that the proper thing will be done here. If the good Senator, and his supporters will demonstrate the same, open-minded, spirit, I’ll bet we could accomplish both protection of the JNEM, AND some kind of “cultural companion” nearby, if further information should show it to be feasible and desirable. It should NOT be necessary to sacrifice ANY public greenspace in the process. Mr.Roth and I apparently see the world differently, at least on this subject. I’m happy to leave it at that and allow the process to work out as it will. It is not personal with me, but I WILL fight to protect our parks,as long and hard as necessary. Don Castleberry

— don c
4:31 pm August 3rd, 2008

I was going to write a long comment on this but Mr. Castleberry’s points mirror my own thoughts on this very well (and I did not find anything about them the least bit condescending). I just do not see the point in adding to this monument, especially in light of the fact that there are distressed, and abandoned areas that surround the Arch. So many people in this area seem to believe that the riverfront only exists right in front of the Arch itself. In my opinion lacledes landing or chouteaus landing are the areas that are seriously under utilized. Redevelop them both, starting with the area immediatley south of the Arch, which incidentaly is perhaps one of the most blighted areas of this city. The Arch would be the centerpiece of a riverfront that would not restrict people to the grounds but encourage them to expand their horizons to the city surrounding it. On lacledes landing, none of the bars or restaurants even have a view of the river as they all face 1st street. I do like the NPS ideas that I have heard concerning a bridge over the highway and redevelopment and possibly a ferry to the Illinois side of the river, but keep it subtle. We could even get some boats back down on the river, when I was a child I remember going to the USS Inaugural, the Robert E. Lee, the Admiral, cruising the president and there were always people there. There are so many ideas in this city that try to fix what is not broken and it seem like many people want to blame the NPS for the condition of the riverfront when the land is maintain is the best in the area. The people I talk with that support this all say the same thing, more parking, ferris wheels, restaurants on the Arch grounds and I could not think of a worse way to treat this area. I also find it very ironic that city leaders want control over this land at the same time they are trying to pass soldiers memorial, which has been miserably neglected, off to the NPS.

— Jaco
4:25 pm August 22nd, 2008