J.B. Forbes | Post-Dispatch

The National Park Service has released its proposed  “preferred alternative” for a new management plan for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial.

The document’s purpose is to set out the operating principles and objectives for the Gateway Arch, Arch grounds, Old Courthouse and Luther Ely Smith Park, and property east of the Mississippi across from the Arch grounds.

Among the issues the “preferred alternative” seeks to settle are (a) how to reinvigorate public programs at the Memorial, (b) how to improve public access the Arch grounds and better connect it to the adjacent city center, and (c) whether the Arch grounds should become the site of a brilliant new cultural facility as proposed by former U.S. Sen. John Danforth and the Danforth Foundation.

Nobody seems particularly happy with the result.

To my way of thinking, that’s a very promising development, one I believe could lead to the best possible outcome for all interested parties — not least the public at large, which would have a fantastic opportunity to become part of the process.

That’s because the Park Service’s “preferred alternative” settles nothing. Instead, it throws open the question of how best to harmonize all interests on all questions to the world’s most brilliant and imaginative planners, thinkers, designers and architects.

Specifically, the Park Service proposes to host “[a] design competition akin to the 1947 competition” that led to the Saarinen design. The contest’s purpose would be “to generate ideas to revitalize the Memorial grounds, expand interpretation, education opportunities, and visitor amenities (e.g. restaurant, restrooms) in an area bounded by Memorial Drive, Washington Avenue, Poplar Street, and the north and south reflecting ponds.”

This would take the discussion out of the realm of conjecture and abstraction - a healthy development in a debate that increasingly centers on interpretations of private people’s and public agencies’ good intentions, and speculation over the possible consequences of their actions.

A well-organized competition could create conditions for Saarinen’s worthy successor to imagine and step forward with new possibilities for this great landmark.

It would leave the public, Park Service and potential private benefactors to judge for themselves the merits of concrete ideas of what might come next.

This bears emphasizing:

None of this would have been possible without Sen. John Danforth’s stubborn insistence that the community and Park Service “think big.”

Now we have the Park Service proposing a “preferred alternative” that could set the stage for a competition of big ideas among the world’s best thinkers.

This is no small accomplishment.

In the end, Sen. Danforth — who much earlier had proposed an international design competition — can decide whether the results of this competition meet the challenge he posed and thus are worthy of the foundation’s benefaction.

* * *

The trick is to frame the competition so it promotes visions for brilliant additions to the Arch’s grounds, while preserving Eero Saarinen’s masterpiece, and the setting in which it is situated.

Sen. Danforth and the Danforth Foundation have been working for years to find ways to revitalize the Arch grounds, suggesting a willingness to contribute, and help to raise, tens of millions of dollars to develop a cultural facility of high architectural distinction, one that would honor and complement Eero Saarinen’s masterwork.

I think Danforth’s concept is outstanding, and have made no secret of that view.

Indeed, the Park Service’s agreement to review its general management plan — which had been in effect, largely unchanged, since the Arch’s construction — was at Sen. Danforth’s and the foundation’s urging.

The senator noted in a prepared statement that he believes “language” in the Park Service proposal “appears to create possibly insurmountable barriers to creating the world-class destination attraction we recommend.”

Here’s the language that worries him:

“To the greatest extent possible, (the National Park Service) will preserve the essential character-defining features of the National Historic Landmark designed landscape and structures.”

Evidently, he views this as potentially undermining the opportunity for a new, world-class facility — however well it might complement the Saarinen masterpiece.

The National Parks Conservation Association, on the other hand, reads the Park Service proposal as worrisome in the opposite way.

It expressed concern that the Park Service might be giving up too much, and in its own prepared statement “urge[d] the agency to give thoughtful consideration to balancing the need for … improved services with preserving the integrity of the site’s National Historic Landmark Designation.”

I see this kind of tension as proof the Park Service planning team has achieved a productive balance.

The Park Service held two public events late this spring and early summer, which generated thousands of comments on suggested alternatives for improving public access to the Arch grounds (including doing nothing) as well as the idea of developing additional facilities.

On its face, the planning team’s “preferred alternative” appears to preserve all the best possibilities.

Indeed, one of the options for improved public access (Alternative 5) was revised to call for abandoning Memorial Drive, turning it into public space and plazas, thus removing the terrible scar that separates downtown and the Arch grounds, rerouting traffic onto underutilized downtown streets.

This was not originally proposed by the Park Service as an alternative. It was developed and spearheaded by an ad hoc, loosely connected group of urbanists and planners, (n.b. read clarification below) who received a valuable assist from Les Sterman of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments.

It made the cut because it is a very good idea.

Yes, the “preferred alternative” sets ground rules designed to preserve the “essential character-defining features of the National Historic Landmark designed landscape and structures” — as well it should.

On the other hand, it acknowledges that “[t]he look of the Memorial grounds and overlooks could potentially be changed” as a result of the process, including through development of “new facilities.”

In short, nothing on the face of the “preferred alternative” appears to foreclose a world-class addition to the Arch grounds, as envisioned by Sen. Danforth. Nor should it.

By the same token, nothing in the “preferred alternative” fairly can be read to suggest the Park Service has gone soft on “preserving the integrity of the site’s National Historic Landmark Designation,” which has created angst with the Parks Conservation Association.

A watchful public participating in the proceedings could aid the process by pushing for a competition that attracts top contestants and ensures they have the freedom to pursue big ideas so long as they preserve and complement this great landmark.

* * *

There are other matters that require public discussion:

U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, has introduced legislation that adds a framework for future planning.

One part of the bill should be strongly reinforced:

The legislation would set October 28, 2015 as a deadline for completion of improved public access and  added “educational, instructional and research programs, facilities and technology” developed to “commemorate the pioneering spirit of migration throughout the nation.”

A deadline is crucial, because it would minimize dithering and ensure the job gets done — all in time to mark the 50th anniversary of the completion of the Gateway Arch.

Other aspects of the bill require careful debate.

The bill would confer National Historic Landmark status on the Gateway Arch and the Old Courthouse, which is fine. The Arch has such status and the Courthouse deserves it.

The bill also designates the grounds surrounding the Arch for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

Critics argue that the Arch grounds already have landmark status and say simply including it on the National Register represents a downgrading of the Arch grounds from the higher level protections — all to make development of the grounds easier to achieve.

There are dueling legal opinions on the question, one that argues the Arch grounds never received Landmark status, another that contends the grounds are well protected by law.

This is a debate that should be deferred, because for now it serves only as a catalyst for needless controversy.

Let’s see what the competition yields. Then everyone can judge whether the most worthy proposals  conflict with legal protections, and if so whether there can or should be accommodations in law.

The bill also would authorize (but not require) the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Trust on matters relating to the planning, development and operations of facilities on the Arch grounds.

The trust is a non profit corporation organized this June by proponents of the Danforth effort.

The idea that the Department of Interior might contractually supplant the Park Service already has retired Park Service employees up in arms, calling it “a thinly-veiled effort to have a significant portion of the Memorial grounds transferred from (National Park Service) jurisdiction and programs to a private institution, the Danforth Foundation.”

This seems like another needless, unproductive distraction. Once again, if the competition produces  worthy candidates there will be time enough explore potential partnerships with private parties — arrangements that have happy precedents, most notably at Gettysburg National Military Park.

* * *

The Park Services says it will be publishing a final draft of the general management plan, along with an  environmental impact statement, after the first of the year. After that, the public will have 45 days to offer comments, during which period one or more public meetings will be organized.

No doubt Sen. Danforth and his accomplished team of advisers have grown weary of the process.

One prominent national advocate who jealously protects parks but is deeply intrigued by Sen. Danforth’s efforts said to me that “the last thing we want is for the Danforth Foundation to fold up their tent on this project.”

One way to prevent this might be to get right to work on planning the competition, in partnership with the foundation, working on a time line that is compatible with completion of the overall project by 2015 — getting everything set for a fast start after a new general management plan is in place.

Here’s hoping the foundation stays in the game, and that a broad segment of the public nationwide joins the party and helps to explore the brilliant possibilities for our beloved Arch.

——-

Clarification: After publishing this post I heard from Rick Bonasch, a local planner who writes the STL Rising blog. He is one of the original advocates whose work led to the Park Service’s revising its Alternative 5 to calling for the abandonment of Memorial Drive as a means of connecting the center city to the Arch grounds, rerouting of traffic on north-south city streets that have plenty of excess capacity.

Rick correctly notes that the local planners’ and urbanists’ vision to which I refered above mainly calls not for abandonment of Memorial Drive but for eliminating the I-55/I-70 depressed lanes — something that becomes a viable option when the new bridge is built north of downtown.

The ultimate vision would be for Memorial Drive to serve as a pedestrian friendly city boulevard, not today’s multilaned monstrosity and not a pedestrian plaza.

He is correct and I wish my original post had been more clear on this point, but I would respond by saying that the Park Service revised Option 5 plainly (albeit incrementally) is responsive to their vision and the proposed preferred alternative does not exclude any of these possibilities.

I spoke with Park Service planner Sandra Washington today, and she confirmed for me that the more ambitious vision for elimination of the interstate depressed lanes definitely could be grist for the design competition contemplated under the Park Service proposal — should that be the direction a contestant wanted to take.

In other words, the Park Service’s suggestion of a more modest step in the local planner’s direction does not foreclose a design competition contestant proposing a more dramatic vision for connecting downtown to the Arch grounds.