A river runs alongside it, but if you\u2019re in downtown St. Louis, you\u2019ll have a hard time getting to it. In fact, you can barely see it\u2014the Mississippi, that is\u2014even from the grounds of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, better known as the Gateway Arch.<\/p>\n

But that scenario could change dramatically by 2015\u2014the 50^{th<\/sup> anniversary of the completion of architect Eero Saarinen\u2019s iconic, stainless steel monument on the St. Louis riverfront. How functional, costly, and aesthetically pleasing a revamped riverfront will be depends on decisions soon to be made by a panel of St. Louis big-shots, the US Parks Service, nationally known architects and urban planners, and citizens.<\/p>\n}

Bottom line, revitalizing the Arch grounds and the St. Louis riverfront is an exciting notion. A visit to the Arch grounds reveals the need: the crumbling staircase from the Arch to the waterfront; tree stumps along the \u201callees\u201d leading to the Arch; the dark, dank and dirty parking garage at the north end. The Arch is still a mecca for travelers, and it continues to inspire: There\u2019s always at least one supine photographer trying for that ground-to-sky money shot of the Arch. So, further improving the Arch and St. Louis experience is a worthy endeavor.<\/p>\n

The big, looming decision is to choose the architectural\/design\/urban planning team for the project. Earlier this week, the five finalists revealed their concepts. In a competition called \u201cFraming a Modern Masterpiece,\u201d local, national and international design groups were challenged \u201cbetter frame the iconic Arch and weave the national park back\u00a0into the fabric of the city and the region, by rejuvenating connections and re-energizing the area.\u201d<\/p>\n

The concepts [more details here<\/a>]are on display in an exposition that will travel around the St. Louis metro area until Sept. 24. \u00a0Shortly after the exhibit went up at its first stop\u2014the pavilion beneath the Arch\u2014I took a look. The experience can be one of information overload, and you have to slog through some fairly b.s.-type verbiage\u2014in small type\u2014and sort through some highly conceptual and unrealistic drawings. I noticed a lot of people congregating around the maps on some of the exhibits, where they could realistically compare how they got to the Arch that day [it\u2019s not easy], to how they might get there under the new designs. It\u2019s heartening to see the interest and engagement in something that will define the \u201cfront door\u201d of St. Louis for, possibly, the next 50 years.<\/p>\n

Conveniently located near the large, colorful presentation boards are comment sheets for public input. Hoping that citizens\u2019 comments will be taken into account, I filled in the blanks. Here are some gut reactions, in no particular order, from a citizen with no particular expertise or credentials\u2014just an interest in the obvious and logical goal of reconnecting a city with the river that created it in the first place:<\/p>\n

Creative ideas that jump out<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
• Rebuild the stairway leading down from the Arch grounds to the river, incorporating Saarinen\u2019s original idea of a \u201ccatenary curve\u201d shape that would parallel the shape of the Arch itself.<\/li>\n
• Create a promenade out of two lanes of the historic Eads Bridge, to offer another view of the river and a pleasant connection to the east bank.<\/li>\n
• Add a pedestrian bridge, attached to the Poplar Street Bridge that would link east and west.<\/li>\n
• Re-think the East St. Louis side of the riverfront: Develop an agricultural park on the east side, and at long last, invest in the neglected and just-plain-ugly east bank of the Mississippi, which offers a dramatic view of the Arch and the city.<\/li>\n
• Re-imagine the [currently underground] visitors\u2019 center and exhibit space, adding skylights and windows, so that the Arch and riverfront are visible. [What could be more logical than that?]<\/li>\n
• Enhance landscaping around the Arch-grounds pools, creating mowed grass pathways meandering among native grasslands and gardens.<\/li>\n
• Lower the “berm” that blocks viewing the river from ground level.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

  What\u2019s silly, and what\u2019s missing<\/strong><\/p>\n

  Okay, I\u2019ll say it: One of the presentations strikes me as just silly and unworkable, replete with floating globes and Disney-like architecture. One of the competition criteria [I\u2019m paraphrasing] was to respect the flavor of Saarinen\u2019s original design. The beauty, simplicity and soaring grace of the Arch speaks for itself. Turning the grounds into a quasi amusement park adds nothing and would, in effect, undermine the vision.<\/p>\n

  The bigg<\/a>est drawback of all five finalists\u2019 designs is their inclusion of a \u201clid\u201d over the interstate highway [I-70] that roars between downtown St. Louis and the Arch grounds\u2014an ugly scar, and a noisy, dangerous barrier. I\u2019ve written about this before<\/a>, and the tireless people at the non-profit, citizens\u2019 group, City to River<\/a>, can explain it better, but here\u2019s the crux. The \u201clid\u201d presented by the design teams may offer a safer and more scenic way to get to the Arch grounds, but it doesn\u2019t solve one key problem: It fails to offer a convenient connection between downtown St. Louis\u2019 two most-attended attractions\u2014Busch Stadium, where a virtually guaranteed 3 million fans watch the St. Louis Cardinals play baseball every summer, and the Arch itself, with an annual visitor rate of more than 2 million. In the \u201clid\u201d scenario, baseball fans have no straight-line route to the Arch. To get to or from the Arch, pedestrians would have to detour several blocks to the north to find the \u201clid\u201d over the highway.<\/p>\n

  A better solution would be to remove the currently depressed lanes of I-70 [Memorial Drive] and to replace them with a grade-level city boulevard, which would offer a logical, visible, convenient and pleasant connection. This option was not included in the competition\u2019s parameters, presumably because highway removal [which requires environmental impact studies and such] could not be accomplished by the 50^{th<\/sup>-anniversary-ceremony-driven deadline of 2015. But the US Park Service has said that it favors highway removal, where possible, and four of the five design competitors have stated that the boulevard concept is a desirable approach [although this assertion appears as more of a footnote than a recommendation in their proposals.]<\/p>\n}

  We can only hope that the decision-makers appreciate the long-term value of the highway-removal alternative, and that they don\u2019t simply default to the \u201clid,\u201d because of ceremonial time constraints. And one further caveat is in order: It would be sad [but predictable] if St. Louis adopted the \u201clid\u201d as a \u201ctemporary\u201d solution, with a vague promise of creating the boulevard in the undefined future. We\u2019ve seen these temporary solutions before: Amshack, anyone?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  A river runs alongside it, but if you\u2019re in downtown St. Louis, you\u2019ll have a hard time getting to it. In fact, you can<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":26471,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[119],"tags":[639,637,638],"yoast_head":"\n