It doesn’t matter what the people think or say, John Danforth has the money, the political connections in Washington, D.C., and the power to do what he wants done to the Arch. This is his final legacy.
Besides Washington University campus, the Arch grounds or his new museum will be named after him or his family.

I thought Danforth went broke, like the rest of us, and pulled out.

Whatever happens, expansion of government lands seems like a bad idea. If anything, they ought to privatize some of it for vending. The last few times I was down there, the general area was getting pretty dumpy - trash all over the place. Venders wouldn’t stand for that - it’s bad for biz.

Tear the arch down and make it a huge parking lot for the St. Louis Cardinals fans. Run buses to the stadium every 2 minutes, and all will be good. That would create jobs for tearing it down, and then paving it. A good stimulus package. Further we could possibly hold onto Pujols when his current contract expires. As Pujols goes so does St. Louis.

I can’t think of one reason to visit St. Louis other than to watch Pujols play for the Cardinals. Can anyone else?

Here is the problem with the “preferred alternative”. The defining problem that this massive effort is trying to fix is ACCESS TO THE PARK. Nothing is wrong with the Arch nor the grounds, hence the requirement in the “prferred alternative” that the designer may not touch the Arch nor the general existing design. So why would a world renowned designer spend their effort on this when the scope of their efforts is so limited? We already have designs that are the bi-product of millions of dollars in analysis.

………….I’m not surprised at all. I knew that the concrete-cartel powers that be would need another big boondoggle project after the HWY 40 rebuild is done.

They’ve already built us an unused useless runway at Lambert, and our stadiums are still pretty new to tear down.

Actually I’m surprised they aren’t wanting to completely tear down the Arch and build a new concrete one.

johnh,

Yes, if you’re not fond of your car windows you can park downtown. They’ll be in small pieces within the day.

The p-d claim that the “preferred alternative” is actually that of the Park Service is a fraudulent pile of crap. It is DANFORTH’s “preferred alternative”, achieved with the usual arm-twisting by the “privileged classes and public plunderers” whom this phony blog is supposed to guard against but instead supports. it will be danforth’s monument to himself, danforth’s [latest] folly. Even the wording of the “preferred alternative” is dishonest, claiming first that the Arch and its surroundings are off-limits, then contradicting that by welcoming proposals to rearrange the park and build new structures in it.

The very notion that a competition will bring brilliance once again to the riverfront is skewed. It’s expecting lightining to strike twice in the same place. Saarinen’s design was and remains genius, a brilliant solution and a universe above any of the other entries in the original competition or in its latter stage. And it remains far and away the best and possibly the ONLY project anywhere at any time in which an architectural competition actually produced brilliance. It virtually never happens, and to expect it again is whistling dixie in front of the Dred Scott courthouse. And the notion that the Arch grounds NEED a new solution is itself the product of infinitessimally small minds, including those on the p-d editorial board, and, most especially, ex-sen. danforth and the danforth foundation. The Park Service has been pummelled into submission by a coalition of small minds, to its great discredit [hey, y'like Old Faithful? Let's drill nearby and have TWO!]

slouis deserves the danforths and the p-d editorial board and they deserve slouis. they DON’T deserve the Arch or its grounds, and they will devastate them as surely as the big muddy will keep on rollin’.

Leave the arch and grounds alone.
The Jefferson National Memorial park is a place of beauty.
Don’t trash it with commercialism.
.
My memory is that Danforth recently backed out on his financial backing after the stock market tanked.
It’s a cliche, but “every cloud, even that very dark one, has a silver lining”.

Does the p-d editorial board even READ the crap it publishes under its name? Here’s a quote from the above article: “The options are exciting and the plan, once finalized, will start a new era for the Arch and the 91-acre Jefferson National Expansion Memorial of which it is the centerpiece.”

Leaving aside the question of whether the Arch is the “centerpiece” of the Memorial, let’s look at “the plan”: Hmmm—turns out there ISN’T one. One has yet to be decided. And what are the alternatives? Let’s look at two: “One”, the p-d says, “is to leave things alone.”

Another, endorsed by the p-d, the privileged classes, and the public plunderers, the villains whom the p-d in its masthead for this phony blog claims to oppose, would welcome “substantial changes to the park’s…appearance—including new structures”.

So the p-d is “excited” about leaving the Arch and the grounds ALONE, and is also [yes, more] “excited” about having “substantial changes” made to the park?

And EITHER would usher in “a new era for the Arch and the…Memorial”?

Ummm—how would that work, exactly?

PS, to “egoist”: public plunderers NEVER go broke taking over the public’s lands, either personally or by proxy. But they love to use the economic problems of ordinary people to elicit undeserved sympathy for themselves, when in fact they richly [literally] deserve derision. the danforths are in fine economic shape. you can rest easy about that. they’ve got plenty of money to spread around if they choose. And read the article again: none of the “alternatives” involve expansion of public land. They only change the USE of some public lands [ie - streets and parts of the highway] that are ALREADY public. the dangerous invasion is quite the reverse: your very own wish to privatize parts of the park. The idea that private vendors would keep the park cleaner than the last time you were there is idiotic. They would only produce MORE trash. And pave the way for wholesale destruction of the integrity of the park. Privatizing public lands, especially parks, is the evil.

AND, the high and mighty p-d, while POSTURING as a public voice about the proposals regarding the Memorial [which themselves are only open by the Park Service to public critique for 25 more hours], by touting a “highly readable document” about the proposals which “can be found online”, doesn’t even bother to provide a link to such a document, or to report where it can be found. Sly.

The p-d’s reportorial responsibilities have been trampled by its rush to promote its own version of “the plan”, and to urge readers not to favor caution or to educate themselves about how the public plunderers are about to savage the park, or even to think, but rather to “join the chorus”. This town doesn’t NEED a chorus. It needs thoughtful outrage. the p-d’s reportorial responsibilities ahve been sunken in the information superhighway without adequate access to the facts. New connectors are necessary.