Architect Eero Saarinen

Earlier this year, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth unveiled an ambitious vision for a revitalized St. Louis riverfront and Arch grounds.

He said he was prepared to commit $50 million of his family foundation’s assets toward the cost of connecting downtown to the Arch grounds and the riverfront and building a “world class” visitor attraction on the grounds to complement Eero Saarinen’s masterpiece: the Gateway Arch.

Mr. Danforth proposed that a specific concept and design for this new institution be the subject of an international competition.

It was a stunning and controversial vision, and it remains so. But last week, the realities of Wall Street put the vision on hold. Mr. Danforth formally notified the National Park Service and the Department of Interior that the value of the Danforth Foundation’s assets had declined along with the stock market. In a letter, he told the parties that he was not certain that the $50 million would be available to help pay for the project, particularly given that it could take years to come to fruition.

In an interview, Mr. Danforth, a partner at the law firm Bryan Cave, was quick to emphasize that his personal commitment to the project is undiminished and that funding from the foundation still is very much alive.

But Mr. Danforth has decided to await a specific proposal to emerge from the National Park Service’s planning process. “If it’s big, I’m interested,” he said. “We will help with resources then available.”

That planning process is entering an exciting period.

Over the summer, the Park Service invited ideas and comments from the public and then weighed various options for a new management plan for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, the national park site of which the Gateway Arch is the centerpiece. It is the first major overhaul of the management plan since the park’s inception more than 40 years ago.

In October, Park Service officials announced a “preferred alternative” for the new plan, one that is structured around “a design competition akin to the 1947 competition.” The earlier competition, of course, brought us Eero Saarinen’s winning entry. The new one seeks to “generate ideas to revitalize the Memorial grounds, expand interpretation, education opportunities and visitor amenities.”

Entries in the competition also must address “connectivity between the Old Courthouse and the Gateway Arch” — strategies for healing the scar of highways and roads that separates the community from the riverfront and the Arch grounds.

“Connectivity” should be the top priority for everyone who dreams of a reanimated riverfront. The riverfront cannot become a vibrant destination without fixing the access problems, regardless of any other changes that might occur.

John Danforth (AP Photo/David Karp)

The success of this effort will require a combination of compelling planning and political muscle. It does not hinge on the size of any individual philanthropic portfolio, but it would benefit immensely from Mr. Danforth’s energy, prestige and know-how.

Lynn McClure, regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association, notes that Mr. Danforth’s insistent leadership has “jump-started the conversation about improving the visitor experience at the memorial and inspired national attention to this national treasure. His interest has led to a general management plan and the concept of a design competition.”

It also has raised the hackles of some activists who have their own vision of improved access to the designated national historic landmark that otherwise is preserved largely as is.

This is where a well-organized competition once again could become the source of excitement and great ideas, as well as a venue for consensus. The 1947 competition generated proposals for monuments with classical motifs, the kind that grace the Mall in Washington, D.C. A different entry proposed a grand waterfall spilling into the river, another envisioned housing for an international agency allied with the newly-formed United Nations, and one unveiled a plan for a soaring stainless steel catenary arch.

Sixty-one years ago, if St. Louis’ civic leaders, politicians and philanthropists — or, indeed, preservationists — had been stubborn or narrow in their views, St. Louis might never have benefited from Saarinen’s vision.

Let’s open our minds and eyes once again. Let’s see what a new generation of would-be Saarinens have to offer.