I became fully repatriated to St. Louis yesterday, as moving trucks arrived and unloaded all my and my family’s stuff at our new home in St. Louis’ Shaw Neighborhood.

This represents the second time I have found my way back to my boyhood home: I was in New York City for college and law school and for total of 10 years before returning in 1987; now, I am back after 6 years in Dayton, Ohio.

And as I settle in, and once again survey the landscape, I must say that the civic project that most excites my imagination — and that I believe has the greatest potential to raise the region’s image in a lasting way — is the movement to elevate the Arch as an architectural and engineering masterpiece and soaring symbol of human progress:

By better connecting it to the local, national and world communities through dramatically improved physical access and by associating it with a spectacular cultural institution situated on the Arch grounds.

A new advocacy group called “Groundswell for Change” has set up a Website, and is calling the initiative (sparked by a challenge to the community posed by Sen. John Danforth and The Danforth Foundation) a “once-in-a-half-century opportunity.”

I think that characterization is fair. And I think the project’s abstract goals are excellent.

(The group presents its case in the video at the top of the post)

But to realize its full potential these goals must be translated into practical action that takes full advantage of what truly may be a civic chance that only comes around every other generation.

Sen. Danforth exhorts the community to “think big.” Ok. A worthy challenge. I think a case can be made for upping the ante and thinking bigger — in terms of physical access and cultural opportunity.

I’ll get to that in later posts.

Instead, let’s start, very briefly, with matters of leadership:

The “Groundswell for Change” group has an impressive steering committee and list of endorsers.

Two observations:

St. Louis, once renowned as a “corporate headquarters” town, is increasingly thought of as a “branch office” town. To the extent that implies the region lacks the economic might to shepherd through a public project of this scale, I am not sure it is accurate.

Yet, the question arises: Will the new generation of corporate leaders of St. Louis largest enterprises now headquartered elsewhere step to the fore on this project?

So far we see the anonymous Civic Progress and business organization fronts’ endorsements.

That’s a good start, but a good test to the “branch office” taunt (and whether corporate leaders share the “once-in-half-a-century” vision) is whether actual flesh-and-blood businesspeople from banks and other national concerns raise their personal profiles in behalf of the project.

Second observation:

The Arch is a national treasure — and, as an architectural contribution, an international one.

The idea of a forging a new, world class cultural institution connected to the Arch should be of interest to major cultural leaders — in disciplines that include history, architecture, education, and urban development.

The “Groundswell for Change” advocacy group calls itself as a “friends” organization.

A test of the depth of its members’ friendship will be their willingness to aggressively court new friends across the nation and throughout the world willing to “think big,” or bigger still.