© 2024 St. Louis Public Radio
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Arch grounds: change or not?

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: June 26, 2008 - Former Missouri Sen. John C. Danforth believes the National Park Service has made up its mind against any changes or improvements to the grounds of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial.

He described a meeting last night in Forest Park, and another one next week at the Old Courthouse downtown, as  "window dressing."

Danforth said a quote in Wednesday's Post-Dispatch worried him particularly. Jefferson National Expansion Memorial superintendent Tom Bradley told the newspaper, "The grounds are a memorial. I'm hard-put to see how we can put something big on park grounds that's not already there. That's clearly a difference of opinion with the Danforth folks."

"Clearly," Danforth said. "My concern is they've (the National Park Service) made up their minds."

Park Service officials say they're keeping an open mind. 

Danforth has puzzled over the riverfront problem for years. He has made various attempts to change and improve it. He and his associates - which include civic leaders and officials of his family's philanthropic Danforth Foundation -- believe the riverfront has potential to be a regional asset and a magnet for residents and tourists alike.

He believes - and there is reasonable consensus here - the ragged, forbidding connection to the grounds from downtown is a serious problem. There are various ideas of ways to solve the problem, and at various times various schemes have been presented.

Another problem, more complex than a connection, is that the Arch - magnificent as it is - is not enough to stimulate visits by large numbers of people, and that the services and exhibits under the Arch are inadequate, Danforth et al believe. In particular, Danforth advocates the establishment of a brand new attraction such as a museum on the Arch grounds.

There things get sticky, because Park Service officials aren't necessarily in agreement with him, and there are also questions of property ownership. Superintendent Bradley said the grounds have landmark status and need protection in regard to any new construction.

Perhaps there could be shared ground, he said Wednesday, and maybe new museum exhibits. "We just need to figure out where." He has lived in New York City and says he appreciates the magnetic attractions of Central Park and the draw of Millennium Park in Chicago. But he believes the Arch grounds need protection from what might be inappropriate new construction.

Deputy superintendent Frank Mares, who has worked at the Arch in various capacities since 1995, said the Park Service had not made up its mind in regard to changes or maintenance of the status quo, but that it is excited to take a "fresh look."

"We have to show a range of ideas," he said, "and then make decisions based on the significance of the memorial and its guiding principles."

The Wednesday evening program in the Visitors' Center in Forest Park drew a steady stream of eager, earnest participants. The Park Service set up five stations at which suggested plans it developed were shown. Responses were encouraged to be given either in person to Park Service personnel attending the stations, or in writing in answers to a questionnaire provided by the Park Service.

The next meeting is to be Tuesday, July 1, from 3 to 6:30 p.m. at the Old Courthouse, which is itself part of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial.

The meetings are part of a procedure leading to the development of a General Management Plan and an Environmental Impact Statement for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, which includes the Arch, its grounds and the Old Courthouse. The ideas and plans presented Wednesday range from taking no action at all, to making better connections between grounds and downtown, to expanded programming in the form of actual new construction, to the creation of improved access through portals on all sides of the grounds to the creation of a "park into the city," which would feature scenic overlooks north and south. None of these plans is to be regarded as final.

By far the most ambitious - and probably the most controversial -- of the five proposals are alternatives three and four - the expanded programming and portals plans.

Sherry Tunteri, a Park Service administrative officer, was at the expanded program station. She saw a lot of traffic at her stand and heard a lot of comments, which were, she said, "mixed." The expanded program plan shows the footprint of a rectangular building on the west side of the grounds, north of the present main west-facing entrance to the grounds. Alternative four, the portals plan, shows a dramatically expanded underground facility, an extension to the west of the existing subterranean museum and visitors' center.

Both Danforth and Bradley attended the meeting, met the public at the meeting, and spent time explaining their positions to participants.

Many Ideas

A tour guide, Doreen Hunter of Webster Groves, told Danforth she likes the idea of the connection to downtown. She wants him to move the Lewis and Clark sculpture, which is now inundated and is, at all times, she said, out of the view of her tour-bus passengers. She thinks the grounds are underused and would like to draw more people to the reflecting pools. She was interested in the idea of a river ferry proposed to run between the riverfront and East St. Louis, but said there has to be a worthwhile reason to go over there.

Ben Senturia, a veteran environmentalist, talked to other participants near Tunteri's station. He believes the grounds should be more accessible but is adamant there should be no building on the grounds "until rational reasons are given to show the passive nature of the grounds will not be disturbed."

Architect Philip Cotton had copies of drawings of the Eero Saarinen's design for an approach to the Arch grounds from the west, and said a bridge was the solution to the problem of Memorial Drive and the depressed lanes of I-70. "There are many inexpensive solutions," he said.

Kathleen Logan Smith, executive director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, an organization with a long history of advocacy of environmental protection, said she is extremely pleased that the National Park Service is taking the lead in this process.

"It should be open and a transparent process." She said heretofore the process had been conducted behind closed doors and that it has not been subject to scrutiny "by more than two people."

Many would dispute that characterization. The planning process began last year when St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay asked three civic leaders - lawyer Walter Metcalfe; Missouri Historical Society president Robert Archibald; and Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden - to undertake an exploration of possibilities for the riverfront and ways to move a planning process forward. Because of their longstanding interest in the riverfront, former Sen. Danforth and his family's Danforth Foundation were part of the effort as well, and the Foundation has spent millions of dollars in hopes of finding workable solutions to the riverfront situation.

When Foundation president Peter Sortino told the National Park Service last August that parkland would be involved in a riverfront plan, the response was less than enthusiastic. As St. Louis Post-Dispatch Washington correspondent Phil Dine reported at the time, deputy superintendent Mares said, "We've been involved with a number of community planners over the past two years on the riverfront master plan, so it's surprising that one of the partners in the planning efforts has jumped out in front of everyone and come to this conclusion without consulting us."

Guiding Principles

Nevertheless, for a while anyway, relations between the Arch and the "Danforth folks" were warming. The Danforth Foundation commissioned American Viewpoint Inc., an opinion research firm in Arlington, Va., to measure public opinion on riverfront improvement plans, including the possibility of making changes and additions to the Arch grounds.

When those results were made public in May, they revealed positive interest, if not 100 percent approval on all points, in moving forward. Letters from political and civic leaders on both sides of the river, along with labor union officials, the St. Louis County Municipal League and organizations interested in urban design and historic preservation revealed largely positive dispositions, although again, some reservations were expressed.

At the same time, Bradley, who'd only recently arrived on the scene, sent out a press release announcing the initiation of the General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement process. The meeting Wednesday was the first public gathering dedicated to their advancement.

"The NPS has developed some preliminary concepts," the May release said, "including reinvigorating the Arch grounds as encouraged by the Danforth Foundation. However, to facilitate sound planning, public participation is crucial. The public will be invited to develop new concepts as well as to comment on those presented by the NPS and other private and public institutions. Participation will be encouraged and facilitated by newsletters and public meetings."

The release said the Park Service would consider including accessible walkways, a pedestrian walkway over Memorial Drive and the depressed lanes of I-70, and streetscape changes to make the environment surrounding the Memorial more inviting and visitor friendly.

Now, attitudes apparently have shifted again, and although Danforth and Bradley had a friendly conversation and worked the same crowd Wednesday their intentions were "clearly" different.

Bradley said, "Before we jump ahead, we want to know what people want to do."

Danforth said, "I hope we are open to a big idea, and for us the big idea is a new museum, perhaps, as Bob Archibald suggests, a museum of American migration."

Scott Smith of Marine, Ill., a professor of electrical and chemical engineering at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, provided a different set of perspectives.

"I love the Arch. I love creative thinking. It's hard to imagine just what might come of this."