Cross purposes

[ back ]

(by Tim Woodcock - July 02, 2008)

At a June 25 open house at Forest Park Visitor’s Center regarding potential changes to the Arch grounds, there seemed to be support for changing how the Arch is managed but skepticism about anything that might compromise the quality of the green space there. While some attendees said they long to see more activity around the Arch, others were keen to point out the difference between a memorial — the official name for the area is the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial — and a regular park.

The management plan for the Arch has not changed since the 1960s, when the attraction opened, and it’s time for a rethink, said Tom Bradley, superintendent of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial.

Buzzwords such as “connectivity” and “portals” were used by the design consultants who have been engaged by the National Park Service for the project, and several members of the public complained that the diagrams, which the NPS emphasized were only conceptual plans intended to spur discussion, were hard to visualize.

Nevertheless, debate was spirited and the flip charts positioned next to the five differing proposals quickly filled up with comments.

The five ideas presented are as follows:

1: Keep the Arch grounds as they are.

2: Keep the Arch grounds as they are, but improve connections to the rest of downtown with a crossing over Memorial Drive and more emphasis on the Laclede’s Landing entrance, which could be made to flow into the Washington Avenue loft district.

3: Use the park more intensively by having additional attractions and expanded programming. One idea that has been floated by the Danforth Foundation is construction of a new museum; the foundation would partially underwrite its cost. The NPS maps show a museum on the western edge of the park, about halfway between the Old Courthouse and Laclede’s Landing. The building would be above ground, which some argue is a move that could threaten the memorial’s status as a national landmark.

4: Expand the existing museum that is underneath the Arch to the west, more than doubling its size. This would create a new main entrance to the Arch. The parking garage on the northern edge of the Arch grounds could also be modified to incorporate an educational or visitor-orientation center.

5: Renovate the buildings at the northern and southern edges of the park and better integrate them into the park. The northern building, currently a low-rise parking garage, would house a visitor-orientation center, while the southern building, currently a service building, would be reserved for research.

The various plans also grapple with the issue of the Arch’s isolation from downtown, with pedestrians having to cross Memorial Drive and the depressed lanes of Interstate 70 to get to the Arch. Solutions under consideration include a deck over Memorial Drive, ranging from one block in width up to three. A much cheaper alternative would be to improve the existing pedestrian crossings and to institute traffic-calming measures.

These plans could be mixed and matched and freely expanded upon, NPS officials said. Though public comment is welcome, it is not binding on the designers, who will present firmer plans later in the year.

Reactions from the public

“Putting a deck across Memorial Drive makes complete sense,” said Thomas Farnam. It is “desperately needed,” but he said the idea of a new building encroaching on the green space makes him furious. If St. Louis really does need another museum, why not convert one of the underused warehouses at nearby Laclede’s Landing, he asked.

Dave Sanders said that although the Museum of Westward Expansion underneath the Arch could do with some updating, he couldn’t see the point in a brand-new museum. He said he was worried that too much activity in the area would detract from experiencing the Arch as a memorial. That said, the one idea that intrigued him was the creation of more attractions on the eastern bank of the Mississippi in Illinois and the use of a water taxi to cross the river.

Jim Nyberg said he just doesn’t see why people describe the Arch experience as a failure.

One proposal included a series of food kiosks within the Arch grounds, as might be found in European parks. Such kiosks “poking up” across the vista would spoil the atmosphere, Nyberg said. Grass and trees are the defining feature of the park and selling food as a way to attract more people would inevitably mean more trash and a degradation of the environment, he said.

Collision course?

The NPS proposals were deliberately vague and the most concrete plan out there, the Danforth Foundation proposal for a new museum, received a lukewarm response from those at the forum.

Walter Metcalfe, who is part of a three-person task force promoting the Danforth Foundation’s idea, said it is too soon to say whether the NPS planning process and his team’s efforts are running in parallel or are on a collision course. Over the coming months the NPS proposals will be narrowed down, and at that point it will become clearer, he said.

A new museum — one that is ambitious in scope and highly visible from downtown — would improve the circulation of people around the Arch grounds, he said. No theme for the museum has been set yet, but it would elaborate on the theme of the Arch as the Gateway to the West: perhaps, for example, exploring the migration of people within the United States or “the spirit of the American people,” he said.

St. Louis needs to seize the opportunity to build a new attraction, and there’s little point having a new museum if it’s buried underground, said Richard McClure, head of Civic Progress, an alliance of the region’s biggest businesses. The Mall in Washington, D.C., is a memorial, but the numerous museums on the periphery in no way detract from its power as a place for reflection, he said.

E-mail the author

Email-A-Friend

Printable Version

[ back ]