Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
11.12.2008 9:00 pm

Tension on the St. Louis riverfront

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

Former U.S. Sen. John Danforth has exhorted the St. Louis region to “think big” about the future of two of its transcendent assets — the Gateway Arch and the Mississippi riverfront.

He sees both as moribund, for all of their majesty — as a poorly connected, needlessly passive, inaccessible world apart from the lives of the community and everyday people they should be serving.

Last weekend about 35 student architects, engineers, artists, and landscape architects from Midwestern universities descended on downtown St. Louis. Their 30-hour mission: Explore “fresh, new possibilities” for reconnecting and revitalizing the riverfront, Arch grounds and near-downtown district.

The students came at the invitation of the St. Louis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and members of St. Louis’ professional design community. They convened at downtown’s Mansion House and worked as teams, the panorama of the Gateway Arch and Arch grounds before them.

The first lesson the students learned was about the tension that Mr. Danforth’s proposal has created.

At a panel discussion Friday evening, Danforth Foundation President Peter Sortino argued the Arch grounds need to be re-energized, possibly by a brilliantly designed iconic structure that respects the Arch’s “magnificence.” This structure also could help revitalize the downtown riverfront, Mr. Sortino said.

But Tom Bradley, the National Park Service’s superintendent for the Arch, reminded them that the American people had set aside the Arch and parts of the Arch grounds to be preserved. He urged the student teams to look beyond the park boundaries when considering strategies.

There was plenty of tension in the students’ own deliberations:

• The Arch is a protected part of the nation’s history. But a significant piece of the nation’s history — a large 19th-century cast iron warehouse district whose architectural significance rivals New York City’s SoHo — was razed so it could be built.

• Communities rightly get excited by the possibility of a new architectural treasure — what one student referred to as “another wow.” But shouldn’t such a structure be just one element of a much broader strategy to reverse downtown inertia?

The student teams worked to reconcile these and other paradoxes while mapping their visions for what might be.

All of them wanted to tear out the tangled barrier of drives and depressed lanes that isolate downtown, the Arch, and the Riverfront from one another.

Otherwise, imaginations diverged.

Some held that nothing is sacred about the Arch grounds, which they saw as due for radical reordering. Others saw the park’s captivating remove as irreplaceable and critical to the city’s long-term future and focused their planning on how to connect people to the park and rebuild the nearby community.

At the end of the process, the students presented their ideas with precision, passion and provocation — totally unencumbered by the layers of politics and manners that so often inhibit local civic conversations.

(The public can view the proposals at an exhibit soon to be set up at the Landmarks Association of St. Louis’ gallery at 911 Washington Avenue.)

It’s doubtful such a discussion would have been held were it not for Mr. Danforth’s challenge. Or that the National Park Service would be considering putting another generation of brilliant minds to work on a new design competition.

The last one, in 1947, yielded the Eero Saarinen masterpiece that symbolizes this city.

20 comments

Comments are closed.

The St. Louis riverfront is a disgrace. The Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and its signature Gateway Arch celebrate a narrow drainage ditch. If you want to think big, excavate about five thousand acres on the Illinois side to create a large pool capable of housing boat harbors, restaurants, swimming beaches and other attractions and bring some expanse to the riverfront.
Many cities have incorporated beauty into their riverfronts but typically, St. Louis lags behind. Louisville, New Orleans, San Antonio, Pittsburgh and even Charleston, West Virginia celebrate their rivers while we look at a ditch and talk about selling hot dogs at the Arch. St. Louis is a joke.

— George Bagot
7:56 am November 12th, 2008

Swimming beaches? Yuck!

— Nick Kasoff
11:33 am November 12th, 2008

There is a going concern directly across from the arch that I doubt would agree to being “excavated.”

— 1*
12:49 pm November 12th, 2008

George, none of the cities that you mentioned destroyed their rivers’ beauty by turning them into lakes. We should indeed celebrate the Mississippi, but we can’t do that if we destroy it.

— Jackson
2:05 pm November 12th, 2008

This past summer, John Danforth had a presentation at the old court house for people to see the proposals to the arch grounds. You were allowed to voice your opinions or make sugestions.
Now there is an exhibition to be set up at the Landmarks Association gallery where I am sure you will be allowed to voice your opinions or make suggestions.
It does not matter what the people, the city, or the National Park Service want, John Danforth has his mind set on making changes.
He has enough contacts in government and enough influence to have his dream fulfilled.
He has stated his family would be willing to donate fifty million dollars towards this project with an attempt to raise another one hundred million dollars.
He just keeps on having presentations and exhibitions with no regard or respect for anyone else.
I am sure when it is all over and done, and he will have it done, something or some piece of the arch will be named in his or his family’s honor.
He’s a politician. This project will become another “pork” funded bill approved by Washington.
Where was he when the arch was being built and what has he been doing the last forty years?
If you have your mind set on something, if you have enough contacts and influence, and if you have enough money, you can have what ever you want.

— Jim Kozlowski
3:46 am November 13th, 2008

I can agree that the riferfront is not beautiful. The depressed lanes are horrible and the crossing of them is unsafe and difficult. The landing is beginning to look run down and the areas to the South of the grounds are definitely not looking all that great. When it comes to the riverfront, what is beautiful and a draw? The Arch and it’s grounds. Why do the Arch grounds need to change when there is room for improvement all around it? How about Danforth make sure you can still get to the downtown by donating that $50 mil to Metro to keep it running. The man is trying to buy a legacy. He is not happy with any ideas unless they are his own and big and majestic enough to put his name on it in neon lights. How about leaving the Arch alone and focusing on the downtrodden parts of the city? Really, if you look at it, right now, the Arch is the only thing drawing people to the riverfront. Why mess with perfection? Why not accent it with surrounding attractions? Do you chop up a perfect large diamond to make it more interesting, or do you surround it with equally georgeous jewels to accent it? There is much room for improvement in St. Louis, why focus on the one thing that maintains itself with no tax money from anyone, and remains consistant tourist draw, keeping the city alive…?

— whyknot
10:03 am November 13th, 2008

The personal swipes at Mr. Danforth and his motives are small and terribly unfair.

There’s a prominent place in this process for the Danforth challenge and offer of benefaction, a process which might result in nothing but also might result in something fantastic. I find that those who categorically oppose it generally are people who never would have supported building the Arch to begin with.

Think about it.

— Eddie Roth
10:14 am November 13th, 2008

Kozlowski and Whynot are absolutely right, and roth’s comments are arrogant and delusional. The Arch grounds are a public trust and are beautiful and a welcome respite to the ugliness and traffic of downtown slouis. If only one could GET to the grounds without risking becoming roadkill or having to hear and see the horrible and inappropriate traffic moat. roth has no idea what people would have supported when the original arch grounds competition was held, but he pretends to read minds. Other cities—big-time cities—respect their parks—New York, San Francisco, LA, Chicago. Not slouis. danforth doesn’t represent big thinking. he represents small-town thinking, and is full of small-town insecurities, thinking that only the disneyfication of the city and invasion of its rare serenities can “save” slouis. Like every other small town in America, slouis thinks that it can be saved by disneylands and casinos and carnival crap. so slouis will remain just another small town, while the danforth babbits of this area ruin the greatest attraction this town has.

As for roth, the original competition called for a memorial park, a majestic setting, and it got the best. It’s people like YOU who wouldn’t have supported the Arch project in 1947, just as you and the rich danforths want to destroy it today.

— Irv Eff
10:51 am November 13th, 2008

We don’t know where this process will lead. It’s wide open. There is a legal process to follow. Lousy access is well established as the biggest, ongoing problem with the memorial.

Danforth and other area leaders have raised the issue, challenging St. Louisans to support improvements. Rather than criticize the effort, why not participate? It was Danforth who stated that the improvement of St. Louis is not a spectator sport. People need to get involved. If you care about improving the front door of our region, get involved.

— rick
11:43 am November 13th, 2008

Why criticize the “effort”? For the same reason that I would oppose outlining the Statue of Liberty in neon or using Niagara Falls as a toxic waste dump. Or painting the Washington Monument green or putting carnival kiosks on the Capital Mall. Or building a McDonalds next to the Vietnam War Memorial. The Arch and its grounds are as they were intended and as they should be. People like you should quit trying to “improve” something that’s already wonderful and a national landmark, and direct your energies to “improving” the crap around it.

you can start, for example, by using plantings and whatever else is necessary to completely shield Forest Park from the disgusting highway 40.

You want to draw more crowds? Try putting up a statue of President Obama glaring at the Dred Scott courthouse.

Instead of criticizing the Arch grounds, why not participate in the effort to save them?

— Irv Eff
12:23 pm November 13th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All