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.

Danforth is right, the Arch IS boring. When I first moved here more than twenty years ago, I thought, “Cool, the Arch.” Now, I don’t pay it the slightest bit of attention.

I think he’s misguided as to what would improve our downtown, though. Putting a museum on the Arch grounds is just window dressing. What we need is a REAL, serious improvement down there, something that would make the Arch an attraction at the level of Millenium Park. What we need is a body of water on the order of Lake Michigan.

But we’re experts at emminent domain here. If Danforth would push it, I’m sure it could happen. Let’s flood the entire area south of the Chain of Rocks bridge, north of the JB Bridge, and west of 255. Imagine the boost to downtown St. Louis if it looked out on a beautiful lake, extending more than six miles east from the Arch. Sure, the folks over East St. Louis would object, but we could placate them by calling it Officer Lake.

Are you listening, Mr. Danforth? This is MUCH more visionary than that boring biotech stuff. Are you listening, Charlie Brennan? This would do much more to revitalize downtown than that walking tour of yours. Are you listening, Mayor Slay? This would forever cement your legacy as a truly tranformational mayor … and if you plan it out right, you could schedule a meeting with Matt Ghio in Sauget just as the floodgates are opened.

Poor John Danforth. He was not getting what he wanted, now he is going to take his money and go home. No one asked you to decide what was right or wrong with the Arch in the first place. It has been there over forty years, why didn’t you say something back during the construction phase if you were unhappy with the design? When you had your mind set on pushing through your agenda, you asked people to come to the Old Court House to voice their opinions, I was one of them. After speaking with you, I came to realize you were one of the most self centered individuals I have ever met who did not really care what people thought, you were going to have it your way or it would be no way.
You came across as someone who wanted to make this his personal goal and legacy. If you want to do something, build a museum, or create a tourist attraction, there is a piece of property right next to Busch Stadium that could use financing for a major tourist attraction. Call the Dimwitt family, I am sure they would welcome you and your money. Building a museumm, putting vedors with carts selling hot dogs or models of the arch to take home on the grounds was a bad idea in the first place. There is a museum there already, maybe you should go visit it. The arch grounds was never meant to be an amusement park. Covering the depressed section of the highway is a disaster waiting to happen. I am sure, before you are finished, there will be a street or building named after you. Keep trying.

LEAVE THE ARCH ALONE AND FIX THE CITY.

There is nothing wrong with the Arch Grounds themselves whatsoever, unless a relaxing stroll or a picnic on a beautiful, scenic green space have no interest for you whatsoever. I would agree that the MUSEUM WE ALREADY HAVE under the Arch could use some updating. But the Arch Grounds are fine. No, what needs fixing is DOWNTOWN. Stand on the Arch Grounds and look towards the city, and all you see is the backs of buildings, dangerous street crossings and a highway - no restaurants, no shops, no clubs or art galleries or anything that would keep people’s interest. Colossally UNFRIENDLY to pedestrians and tourists.

I am really glad John Danforth saw the flaws and canceled. It is such a shame Tom Bradley cannot see the big picture. Does anyone know what happened with the large Ferris Wheel idea? I realize East St. Louis is not exactly an attractive view either. Is anyone working on that?

The Board of Aldermen has already given their approval for tax breaks to the people wanting to put a Ferris Wheel on Lacledes Landing. The developers claim other cities having one of these attractions draw 400,000 people every year ans so will theirs. They want to charge $10.00 to ride it. Do the math.
Just go all out and put up a roller coaster, bumper cars, and an arcade to go along with the Ferris Wheel. The Board of Aldermen, someone should put a tent over that circus.

How about some FOOD options. Yes, that simple. The arch museum is fine underground!!! (What else could you possibly put in regards to westward expansion????)

There are NO food options at the arch. Think about the hundreds and hundreds of people coming to visit with no food options. This is the biggest complaint I have seen and the arch. Screw a museum.

When I was younger I remember so many river boats on the river, and how exciting it was to go on McD’s on the river? What happened to that? I’m sorry, but deeming the riverfront impossible to develop is RIDICULOUS. What makes the stl riverfront different from Seoul, Shanghai, Cincinatti, New York, etc.

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

I think maybe you read the wrong article… this has nothing to do with the topic.

So, the public plunderers and privileged classes don’t like the way things are going down at the Arch, so they’re gonna pick up their marbles and go home. Typical. danforth’s argument is foolish and disingenuous, at best. There are only a paltry 60-odd acres of park on the Arch grounds, hardly “enough” green space. And millions of people visit the Arch and grounds each year, many times the population of slouis—hardly a waning attraction. But danforth wants crowds, crowds and more crowds. Not serenity. Not beauty. This pathetic city is covered in blight, yet the self-appointed kings of the hill, including especially the Editorial Board of the P-D, can’t wait to ravage the Arch grounds. Better to turn their attention and gold to the mudhole next to slouis’ redundant baseball stadium right in the heart of downtown, or raze the soul-deadening garages that surround it and much of the nearby area—build your museums on top of those horrid structures if you must have yet another museum [”say, didja hear? the danforths are building a museum in slouis!!! I can’t WAIT to make my travel plans to rush there and spend my vacation in it!”}. Or maybe rebuild the many square miles of slum housing in the city, or the deteriorating schools.

But no. There must be another “danforth campus”, most likely neo-gothic, right on the Arch grounds. And the levelheaded head of the JNEM here stands in their way. So danforth is having a snit. A very public snit. And the P-D, through its editorial pages, its slanted news, and, most especially, through censorship, supports these destructive aims wholeheartedly.

Don’t slam the museum door on your way out, john.