Tension on the St. Louis riverfront
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.
Eddie Roth writes about education, social justice, public safety, transportation, legal affairs and historic preservation. He joined the Post-Dispatch editorial page in 2008 after six years as an editorial writer with the Dayton Daily News. But he is not new to St. Louis. Eddie grew up in Webster Groves and south St. Louis County. He's a lawyer who for many years practiced with a downtown firm, and was active in civic affairs, including serving a term on the St. Louis Police Board. He and his wife, Jeanne, and their three daughters, Emily, Julia and Alice, live in the Shaw Neighborhood.
When it comes to community organizing, he endorses Quentin Crisp's advice: Rather than keeping up with the Joneses, it's better to pull them down to your level. 
As citizens of the nation that set aside the Memorial as a National Park, we are the stewards of the park. If you oppose private takeover of the grounds, like I do, then you should participate in the process. If you think that a museum and a lid are weak ideas that won’t transform the Arch environment, you should participate in the process. I think that the Danforth approach is problematic, but we have great counterbalance: we, the people, own the Memorial. The buck stops with us. I say we use that power to shape a better setting for the park. the beautiful Memorial deserves a better setting.
Much of what needs to be changed actually falls under state and local control. The focus on the National Park Service distracts from examining the entities that actually hold the purse strings on the visually deprived setting of the Arch. We can lobby city government to improve the riverfront today.
Irv-
Forget adding a new museum or any other new programming. Are you opposed to improving ACCESS to the Arch, removing the depressed lanes, and better connecting downtown, the riverfront, the Arch, Laclede’s Landing, and Chouteau’s Landing? That should be the first priority. If people can’t agree on that, then the rest is just a waste of time.
Dear readers,
The Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and the Arch Grounds are NOT the problem. The problem and let’s use the word opportunity lies in the urban connection from the City and not the Park per se. All kudos to the National Park Service for opening up their collaborative planning process as well as the Danforth Foundation and we now have a superb opportunity to focus on an integrated design that provides safe and aesthetic access to the Park grounds. The Park belongs to the people of the United States and should not be privatized under a local 501(c)3 - taking all or a portion of the Arch Grounds to construct a big box venue is short sighted and bad public policy. The hard edged Memorial drive is a problem, the portals north and south are problemtatic, however, Laclede’s Landing and the proposed Chouteau Greenway have the potential for signifcant residential and commercial use and present outstanding opportunites to connect with the Arch Grounds. Let us focus resources on how the edges of the City can be transformed into a safe and user friendly environment that flows into the Park. And the River, let’s not forget about the River that’s why St. Louis is here - a greenway trail and river trail facilities would be an outdoor attribute and attraction that focuses on the River. From a planning and public policy standpoint a truly “Bold” project would integrate the City with the Park and engage collaboratively the National Park Service and the public process currently underway.
Steve Nagle
Dear Readers,
The Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and the Arch Grounds are NOT the problem. The problem, and let’s use the word -opportunity - lies in the urban connection and interface from the City and not the Park per se. All respect to the National Park Service for opening up the collaborative public planning process as well as the Danforth Foundation and we now have a timely and golden opportunity to focus on creating an integrated design that provides safe and aesthetic access to the Arch Grounds. The Park belongs to the people of the United States as any National Park designation whether urban, historic, wilderness or monument and should not be privatized under a local 501(c)3 - taking all or a portion of the Arch Grounds to construct a big box venue - privatizing public land and leaving it to the well intentioned but nevertheless whims and vagueries of strictly local commerical interests has been a short sighted trend over the last eight years and does not make good public policy.
The hard edged Memorial Drive is a serious problem, (check out Alternative Five in the draft General Management Plan) and the portals north and south are also problematic, however, Laclede’s Landing to the north and the long proposed Chouteau’s Greenway to the south have potential for significant commercial and mixed use presenting an outstnding opoportunity to connect with the Arch Grounds. Let us dedicate ourselves to focusing resources that transform the edges of the City into a safer and more visitor friendly environment that flow into the Park. (a gigantic lid need not be constructed to accomplish this). And the River, let’s not turn our back on the River - that’s why St. Louis was founded. A greenway trail and associated water trail facilities connecting north and south and integrated into the old historic levee would add a signficant attribute to the Mississippi River and our riverfront heritage. From a planning and public policy standpoint a truly “BOLD” project would think beyond the “box” and integrate the City with the Park and engage openly and collabortively the tried and true National Park Service and the public process currently underway.
Steve Nagle, November 13, 2008 St. Louis
Danforth’s study states that the Connection “is dominated by the sounds and smells of the vehicle traffic… pedestrians are required to cross three lanes,… high curbs, lack of ADA ramps, narrow sidewalks and low safety rails.”
What part of St. Louis isn’t?
“You want to draw more crowds? Try putting up a statue of President Obama glaring at the Dred Scott courthouse.”
I’d say I think it’s a little early to start erecting statues of a guy who hasn’t even moved in to the White House yet, but I’d mail a check to whatever foundation put this plan into action. It’s the best idea I’ve ever read.
To dave W. - if the “plan” you’re talking about is the danforths’ plan to vandalize the Arch grounds, read the article. I’m sure they’ll be happy to take your money. If not that, what plan are you referring to?
Irv throws around the insults pretty well. But they are a poor substitute for reason and doing one’s homework.
The National Park Service initiated a process to update and possibly broadly remake the general management plan for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and has now published a preferred alternative which would open to an international competition seeking proposals that rethink access to the Arch and Arch grounds as well as configuration, programming and amenities of the Arch grounds.
If the preferred option becomes part of the general management plan (there still are public comment periods and other process that needs to be completed) and a competition is held, no doubt there will be a broad range of visions and proposals.
Just as they were as a result of the 1947 competition.
I support the idea of a competition that elicits entries from talented people the world over — the process would be great for St. Louis and I believe would once again yield something great for the riverfront.
I think the possibility of some great new architectural work and cultural institution, if pursued with care, could be a catalyst to a dynamic process, and an element of new era for the St. Louis riverfront — one that offers a much needed dramatic improvement to access and that complements the best of what we have now.
Irv evidently thinks he knows better than all possible participants in such a competition, and that what we have now could not possibly be improved upon.
I don’t agree.
Well, among the insults danforth has thrown around are “a disgrace” and “a mess”, and roth has repeated them with approval. The only kinds of parks in danforth’s vocabulary are office and industrial parks.
roth is disingenuous: he had been calling for building on the Arch grounds well before the National Park Service got pressured by danforth’s clout to offer its “preferred alternative” notion. And his blog is grossly slanted in favor of the build-in-the-park position.
roth’s response to my comments is, of course, an “are-you-still-beating-your-wife” attack. he has made no CASE for choosing to open the Arch grounds to the official vandalism that he espouses. Why not do the same to a park that is alREADY run by the city: Forest Park? Or Tower Grove? Why not the Climatron? Or Grant’s Farm? Why not the desultory block north of the cardinals’ stadium? Why not a new monument replacing the Arch? One of those repulsive faux-gothic buildings on the “danforth campus” at WU? or at least indigenous graffiti on the Arch’s base? Why not an amusement park? Or a nascar track? Do you really think a muSEUM is going to keep those millions of visitors who already come to the Arch grounds in the park? Do you really WANT that? Or another “amphitheatre”? We already have the grand staircase, and, unlike a new amphitheatre, it connects the Arch and grounds directly to the riverfront.
We don’t need to disfigure the Arch grounds so that danforth can have a more satisfying view from his office window. In fact, the building containing his office is a blight on the city and on the views of the Arch. The only thing wrong with the Arch grounds is the city that surrounds them and the one across the river. If danforth is so hot and bothered to “develop” real estate, he can find many areas of slouis that need it. The Arch grounds do do not need it.
Apparently roth and danforth think that they know better than Saarinen. I don’t agree.
I love the Arch grounds. I’ll always oppose attempts by people like roth and danforth to mutilate them. And, by the way, every entrant in any competition to build on the Arch grounds thinks that he/she knows better than everyone else. It’s in the nature of competitions.
Irv-
You’re an argumentative type - I hope you will respond to these questions/ideas.
First, re. the larger context, are you opposed to seriously addressing the access/connection between the Arch/riverfront and downtown. From my perspective, I think those challenges should be dealt with as part one of any program for improving the overall area.
Second, re. any new facility at the Arch, one of the student design teams came up with the idea of improving the north garage, facing the Eads Bridge and LaClede’s Landing. They should a new glass and steel walled structure, something that connects the Arch to the Laclede’s Landing area, without changing any of the appearance of the rest of the site.
Would you be against a less intrusive concept like that?