By “other interests in the St. Louis region” does he mean he’s directing the $10 Million toward babykilling and embryonic stem cell research.

“Accordingly, we are now directing our attention to other interests in the St. Louis region.”

Maybe Softball Park Village.

Can’t this nation just get things done anymore? Endless studies and ideas are a waste of money.

So what exactly does this mean? Sounds like some personal politics gone awry. Didn’t the Danforth Foundation just get a boatload of tax money for that science foundation? Hmmmm

You’d think that if they were going to toss in 50 Mill there would be some mention of exaclty what The Danforth Foundation had in mind. What do they mean or suggest as a “major new magnet”?

……….so who died and left you as King of St Louis anyway?

It’s the foundations money.
If the Arch’s direction doesn’t meet the foundations criteria then why not redirect the funds.
.
Personally, I like the Arch and grounds as is.
A monumental civil engineering achievement amongst a wonderful space.

When the Danforth Foundation originally entered the scene, the problem at hand was what to do with the flagging St. Louis riverfront. After spending millions of dollars studying the situation, it was learned - to no one’s surprise - that the river levels and navigational needs at this point in the river make any major permanent development impractical if not impossible.

Before, the Foundation would promote photos of an empty, barren riverfront on the east of the Arch and the highway 70 depressed lanes to the west. The problem never was the Arch, it was the areas surrounding the Arch which were deemed a disgrace. However, with the riverfront plans adrift and the realization that building a lid over highway 70 created its own unique challenges, it appears that the Foundation went in search of a new problem. Where to look? The Arch!

Suddenly, what had just months before been promoted as a wonderful asset and magnet for millions of tourist dollars into St. Louis, was suddenly and sharply criticized for its lack of activity and vibrancy. How could it go from hero to villain in a few short months?

The Foundation pronounced that an above ground museum would not only save us all from the Arch, but it would transform the entire St. Louis region. Why, in an era of dramatic drops in museum visitation nationwide would a new museum be the panacea? Facts notwithstanding, a big blockbuster museum (the purpose for which was unusually vague) was promoted as THE answer. Inexplicably, big business, the construction trades, city government officials, and tourism leaders all fell in line to support this completely unproven concept and began believing the myth that something must be done to fix the unbroken Arch.

That’s not to say that the attention generated by the former Senator has been all bad. It looks like the National Park Service, conservative by design, has begun to look at the Arch grounds with more objectivity than in recent decades. Through their planning process it’s been refreshing to see them acknowledge that there is room for improvement. For example, they’ve acknowledged that parts of the grounds really do need some updating and improvement and the museum that already exists under the Arch, while adequate, certainly could stand a little brush up as well.

To their credit, the park service has listened to the public — all of the public — not just the people with the ability to write a very large check. Their proposal reflects that input and the reality that apparently most Americans don’t believe the myth promoted by those wishing to put their name on the outside of a large edifice. They don’t believe a big museum is the only answer. Apparently, they love the Arch and the greenspace in the midst of a sea of concrete. What they want is better, more pedestrian and vehicle friendly access to the Arch first and foremost.

The Foundation’s statement that “So what we’re left with is the possibility of a better connection to a memorial whose appeal clearly is flagging” does nothing more than perpetuate the myth that the problem completely rests with the Memorial and not streetscape and riverfront surrounding, the original problem the Foundation had set out to correct.

The proposed competition for the arch grounds, could go a long way to address both realities that existing connections to the Arch are truly impassable at times AND that there is more that could be done to introduce additional but appropriate use of the grounds. But, are we to understand that because the plan doesn’t specifically rubber stamp the concept of a new, above ground museum, the Foundation would choose to walk away from a project with such great potential? Can this be the only route to transformative change? Progress is often a product of compromise - a mechanism that was surely alive and well when the Senator served us faithfully in Washington. Need the St. Louis politcal scene be any different?

No doubt the Danforth Foundation will go on to do great good for the St. Louis community. To believe otherwise would be to ignore their very noble track record. Their departure from the project, however, is a tremendous opportunity for other corporate, community and city leaders to now step up, embrace this new opportunity for what it is and to support this new vision for our St. Louis Arch.

Who will it be?

Typo in transform. Jesus- don’t you guys have a proofreader there?

@ Hermosagirl: Thanks. Fixed. And, no.