From my experiences in traveling around the world I believe that the Behnisch Team and the SOM, Hargreaves, BIG team has the most potential to bring new life to the St. Louis area. Their suggestions would bring international interest and local interest to the Arch and surrounding areas. East St. Louis has become a sad place and their ideas would make it a destination place that people won’t be afraid to visit or look at when they’re looking from the top of the Arch. I know I would feel immense pride in my city if either of these teams won.
My preference would be to keep the area as natural as possible to reflect/respect the historic — the green space viewed by the first explorers, the first wagon trains. My “ranking” of the plans is: #1 MVVA, #2 PWP, #3 Weiss/Manfredi, #4 SOM, #5 Benisch.
I support removing the depressed lanes. The key to any sustained interaction is access and additional attractions. Recreational paths for walking/hiking/bikes are good, but miniature golf/BBall and dog parks are not. Go with the gondolas.
We must have A highway passing from the North & South through the city. I do think it should be covered almost to the degree of a tunnel, complete w/ exits directly to Arch Grounds parking, and more tourist signs suggesting a quick, easy stop along a travelers’ route. There are seeveral danger areas while biking/walking seemingly directly outside most every entry to the Arch Grounds, address those issues, add some public restrooms, some sort of ramp from Arch level to river level (think stairs in a wheelchair and/or the end of an extensive bike trail), and I’d be happy. I guess I agree that locals are more interested in connecting to the Arch mostly the way it is than some mind blowing alterations that seem at least somewhat overtly trendy and soon dated.
Having grown up in St. Louis & getting to see the Arch being built, I’d like the winning entry to be faithful to the original vision & design, reviving or restoring it as needed. I DO NOT want a gondala or any extra bridges, etc. built over the river. I really like the idea of restoring the wetland/oxbow lake & having a walking path to/thru it. A permanent music venue is a great idea, too. I think the MVVA Team or the PWP Landscape Architecture proposals most closely match what I’d like done at the Gateway Arch.
I don’t know where your vote for your choice out of the 5. But I like the Son-Hargreaves first and the Behnisch 2nd. Both have elements that enhance the beauty of the Arch and include great plans for the East Side of the River.
I support removing the section of I-70 between Cass Ave and Poplar Street and replacing it with a boulevard. I support the City to River plan. www.citytoriver.org
“I would like to voice my support of City to River’s concept of removing Interstate 70 from the Poplar Street Bridge to Cass Avenue and replacing it with a pedestrian-friendly boulevard. I believe that a new Memorial Drive would reopen the front door for St. Louis and connect the city, the Arch and the river more completely. As citizens of Saint Louis, we have an unique opportunity to revitalize our Mississippi riverfront during the renovation of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and the construction of the new Mississippi river bridge. Let us use this opportunity to create a more vital connection with our city’s grand lifestream. Please incorporate this concept into your design! ”
I grew up in St. Louis and am among those that have always considered the I-70 crossing through downtown as a near fatal gash through the heart of the city. For a city that boasts a history with the river, we have isolated ourselves and our downtown from that source of so much rich history. This is an opportunity that I did not think would come in my life time; the chance to remove the highway from blocking access to the river, and the Arch, from downtown. I implore the designers to incorporate a new Memorial Drive and removal of I-70 from downtown as part of rejuvenating St. Louis and giving us back our river. Without direct access to the Arch and the River, I’m sorry but we are not a river city and should refrain from calling ourselves as such. Thank you for the chance to voice my opinion.
I like this plan and since I moved here 9 years ago I have wondered why it hasn’t already been done.
The sentences pasted at the top of the comments page solicit our thoughts on what the Arch stands for and the values it represents but with its location hidden behind a massive highway wall/canyon, it is hard to believe that it currently symbolizes anything but separation. The original concept for the Arch is of a gateway, inviting people to move westward. It was supposed to be a memorial to exploration, a celebration of our pioneering spirit and freedom. This strong symbolism is fully realized in the structure itself but the wider meaning is lost without any connection to the city itself. St. Louis is a wonderful place to explore, if only we remove the I-70 corridor through downtown. It will encourage both residents and visitors alike to walk westward and visit other great sites, such as the Old Courthouse, City Garden, Cardinals Stadium, and Union Station. St. Louis deserves a more fitting tribute to progress and now is the time for it. It is for these reasons and many more that I hope each and every design team will incorporate the removal of I-70 in their final submissions.
I would like to see the design include the removal of highway 70. It cuts through the community and depresses any activity and connection to the river. Please consider recommendations from City to River.
Thanks!
I read with interest the Post’s article today on the City-to-River proposal for the replacement of I-70 through downtown with a boulevard. I think this is a great idea, and agree that the time is right for such an investment in our city. I hope that your competition takes into account such a bold idea.
Please, please, please, for the love of all that is holy, get rid of the I-70 monstrosity! Right now the Arch, the very symbol of St. Louis, is separated from the city by a massive infrastructure maze: it’s high here, low there, and unpleasant to cross everywhere. The “”lid”" is not enough, let’s just do the obvious thing and turn the whole thing into the at-grade boulevard proposed by City to River.
Thanks!
I recently read about the City to River plans and believe this is a brilliant choice for city planning. Rerouting Hwy 70 and opening up a landscaped boulevard to join our city and riverfront will bring in business and people. How soon can we start?
Please consider removing the section of I-70 between the new bridge and I-64. While Memorial Drive will still be a major thoroughfare, not having the interstate will make the connection between the city and river so much closer. The freeway is ugly and a blight on the city. Sacrificing that north-south link would be a small price to pay for the invaluable improvement in the city’s front door.
I have no videos, photos or empassioned pleas. However, I have visited many river cities: Cincinnatti, Louisville, Indianapolis and I felt the ENERGY these cities had in connection with their river, their origin. STL doesn’t have it, and it’s the result of poor planning. Can you PLEASE get someone with VISION in charge of remaking our riverfront? I studied architecture for several years at the University of Houston and I must say your idea for the new project is feasible and exciting. I have one request: Allow us regular citizens an opportunity to participate in this project. It would thrill me to no end to be one citizen who can get involved, give opinions and yes, IDEAS. Thanks for the chance to encourage your efforts.
The Arch and its environs means a great deal to me. I grew up as it was being built. I am excited about this project and what it could do to extend the meaning of the Arch and what it could do for the St Louis area. I look forward to seeing the proposals in August! Please keep me informed of any developments. I include a link to an commentary piece that I wrote in the Post Dispatch this January. I hope that you can include it in your web site some day.
Thank you!!
I am a resident of St. Louis city and am very excited about the potential of our city center. I sincerely hope that the removal of the atrocious I-70 interstate will be included in the plans to highlight the Arch and Riverfront. What a great destination for area residents and visitors to sit in a restaurant or shop down a boulevard all in site of our magnificent Arch. It’s crucial! Replace the highway and depressed lanes with a pedestrian/bike-friendly boulevard!
I made the St. Louis area my home 25 years ago. Around that time I remember a ’study’ on how to connect the Arch with downtown. It was needed then as is now. Over the years I remember other such ’studies’ and ‘plans’ with nothing done. In that time I have seen visitors try to take their families safely across the area with the look of terror in their faces. I think this plan is worthy with one exception, the traffic continuing north/south along 44/55/70. There are 2 lanes running north/south that have nothing to do with the east/west traffic that are concerned with a new (or existing)hwy.70 bridge. One only has to look over the railing at ANY time of day or night to see a steady flow of traffic in the depressed lanes. To say that this traffic can be handled on a Blvd. and timing traffic lights is ludicrous. As much as I hate to say it, without addressing the CONTINUING traffic in this corridor this plan is flawed. I can only hope this isn’t going to be another ’study’ that comes to naught as all the others over the years have been.
Make sure to include a skyline review panel for the proposed buildings. Entice the visitor at the arch with a satellite museum center from the museum district in this proposed area. The center should be available for a nominal cost with the purpose of luring the visitor to the main museums.
As the owner of the buildings directly south of the Arch on First street, I can tell you I look forward to seeing if the competition can help tie in the arch grounds to the Chouteau’s Landing area to the south. I truly hope you all consider the replacement of the highway with a boulevard as a major component of this project, without it you’re only giving a face lift to a project that has minimal connectivity to the city around it and will just continue to be that way.
The ‘Framing A Modern Masterpiece’ competition shouldn’t be about framing at all — the Archgrounds already has that. If anything, it should be about breaking the frame and letting the grounds and the city seep together, creating an organic and practical connection.
The new design needs to focus on the connection of the two, rather than the additions and amenities to the Archgrounds and riverfront. Without an exceptional (and drastic) update to the Memorial Drive corridor, any new features will be vastly underutilized.
I fully support City to River (www.citytoriver.org) and their goal of entirely replacing downtown’s Interstate 70 — both above ground and below — with an at-grade Memorial Drive boulevard. This practical and obvious design plan should be included in the plans of each of the final five competitors. Anything less and I, along with thousands of other St. Louis enthusiasts, will consider the competition a failure and a missed opportunity of historical significance.
The arch symbolizes the gateway to the West, but is difficult to get to West of Highway 70. The plan must put I70 underneath a natural, 2-block long walkway from downtown to the Arch grounds. As St. Louis is the “Home of the Blues” (music – not hockey), let’s incorporate a blues music theme to go along with the Big Muddy which brought many blues musicians from the south. The new area should accommodate events such as the STL Blues Festival, 4th of July events, etc. with several stages, vendors, and restrooms.
An out-of-town friend and I visited the Arch and the Old Courthouse recently. We parked at the Arch garage, went up in the Arch, viewed a movie and then went to the Courthouse to see the painting exhibit.
Going toward downtown was no problem, but returning we had to be careful of cars turning on Memorial Drive. I think this problem could be corrected easily by having a pedestrian bridge from the Eli Smith park over Memorial Drive to the Arch grounds. I could see the bridge as sculptural, light and airy to complement the Arch and not take away from the expansive view of the Arch and the grounds.
As far as adding amenities to the Arch grounds, I think they should be limited to the parking garage area or the river front. There is not much on the river front now to draw people down there. Perhaps attractions on the east side of the river with a river taxi to them would be fun. Family food restaurants and other museums or exhibit spaces might be pleasant for tourists and locals.
Whatever is done I don’t think it should clutter up the Arch grounds or interfere with the views of the Arch from any direction.
First and foremost, the three block lid over I-70 creating a tunnel allows an opportunity to create a grand entrance from downtown to the Arch grounds. Optimally, Memorial Drive should be closed from Walnut to Pine Streets, however there needs to be some type of street access for the Gateway Tower and the Hyatt on the Riverfront hotel.
A solution would be to extend Market to Chestnut with a horseshoe shaped road to the east of Luther Ely Smith Park. That doesn’t completely eliminate the problem of pedestrian access with vehicular traffic from Luther Ely Smith Park but it does minimize it and allows creation of a grand entrance with a large fountain and sculpture. The lid concept cuts down the traffic noise, creates more green space and allows traffic to access the riverfront only on Walnut and Pine streets from downtown. You could eliminate the I-70 viaduct by extending the tunnel to Biddle Street which is one mile from the beginning of the depressed section at the Poplar Street Bridge. The tunnel needs to have three lanes in each direction, should cost about $150 million(based on the $40 cost to build .3 mile for the Lindbergh Tunnel at the airport) and the only obstacle would be closing metrolink to lower their existing tunnel under the new highway tunnel. Its the optimum solution thus more costly but you cannot completely eliminate that section of I-70 which would become an alternate connection to the other bridges and interstates. At some point in time the Poplar Street Bridge will need to be closed for construction, expansion or repairs so there will be a need to connect I-55 and I-44 with the new Mississippi River Bridge when the Poplar Street Bridge is closed. YOU CANNOT COMPLETLY CLOSE THAT STRETCH OF I-70!! It would be very foolish and the new one mile tunnel would still open up that section of downtown to the river and Laclede’s Landing but not lose the important interstate connection with both major bridges.
The sculpture at the new entrance could be a collage similar to the large animal sculpture at the St. Louis Zoo. Instead of animals you could have a covered wagon pulled by a team of horses, a stagecoach, fur trappers, Native Americans, canoe, riverboats.
Since the Park Service has already allowed the development of the Arch garage then why not develop a new Museum on top of that structure, which is defined as the North Node. You could also develop a similar garage at the South Node with another museum, so that the symmetry and balance would be maintained with two new museums on both sides of the park.
The museums should be designed by prominent architects. I do not like the idea of a new underground museum. These new museums should been visible and have striking architecture. The maintenance facility could become a part of the new south garage or be moved off site. These new museums would allow more activity and interest in that area of the park. Another idea would be to put a glass dome or pyramid over the existing underground museum to allow more daylight into the facility.
As for ideas for these two new museums. One of them should be a Museum of Native Americans with the various tribes, a teepee Indian village, tools used to survive and how they made them, jewelry, headdresses, pelts, blankets, bows & arrows and other pertinent information from that era.
At first I wondered where these artifacts could be found but I saw the National Museum of the American Indian has over 825,000 items some of which are at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian on the Washington Mall.
The second Museum could focus on the various forms of transportation used at that time. A large paddle wheel riverboat would be the centerpiece but there should also be several stage coaches, covered wagons, chuck wagons, hitches, canoes, rafts, plows, saddles and the wonderful history of the pony express and the various stagecoach lines, owners and routes such as Butterfield Overland Dispatch & Stage Company, Ben Holladay & the Holladay Overland Mail & Express Company, Leavenworth & Pike’s Peak Express Company, Wells, Fargo & Company, Yellowstone Park and the famous drivers such as William Frederick Cody (Buffalo Bill) Henry James Monk ( Hank Monk), and Charley Parkhurst (Charley) and the trailblazer known as Jim Bridger. There are numerous Stage Coach, Wagon & Carriage builders that could be acknowledged. These two new museums could be connected to the under utilized overlooks and offer dining.
One other item may include a redesign of the steps that lead up to the overlooks from the riverfront. They are quite cumbersome and have no handrails for the elderly. I have always had issues with the large amount of concrete that faces the Arch grounds from the river and the two barren areas on the northern and southern overlooks. I never see anyone go to those overlooks because there is nothing to draw their interest.
I noticed there are corroded plaques acknowledging William Clark on the northern overlook and Meriwether Lewis on the southern overlook but there are no statues of these men. I think the Park Service should have 20 to 30 foot statues of Lewis & Clark with fountains that were well lighted at night so they could be seen from the bridges.
The horrific old concrete walls on the northern and southern ends of the park off Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard below the overlooks desperately need something done to them. A water feature such as a Water Wall similar to what they have in Houston’s Transco Park with the Williams Water Wall with various types of lighting and design could be placed on it. I’m sure Lewis & Clark encountered many waterfalls on their trip to the Northwest.
The Grand Staircase and the two staircases going up to the overlooks could be made to look better with interesting handrails and some interesting gas light lamp posts. The Old Cathedral Parking lot should be underground with landscaping on top.
This plan would minimize any changes in the landscaping and design of the park grounds, yet allows two new museum attractions with dining facilities, more parking, a new grand entrance to the west and puts I-70 out of sight and connects downtown to the Jefferson National Memorial and the riverfront.
Finally and certainly no less important is the option for expanding the park to the East St. Louis Riverfront. I am exuberant that the National Park Service has included that idea in its preliminary alternatives. I can’t tell you how many times I have taken friends and relatives from out of town, who obviously want to see the Arch and invariably they look at the Mississippi River and see that eyesore of a grain mill and the East St. Louis Riverfront with weeds, railroad tracks and power lines. Obviously, I am all for the 100 acre option or more.
The utility lines, railroad tracks and Cargill grain elevator complex needs to be relocated. That will be a major obstacle! There should be a promenade walkway going completely across the riverfront from the PSB to the Eads bridge so people could walk the length of the park with unobstructed views of the Arch Grounds with views of the two new museums and the waterfalls. I like the idea of a grand water exhibit on this site similiar to the Bellagio Fountain in Las Vegas only bigger and better.
There have been tentative plans to build a world class Museum of Architecture. Larry Giles has been collecting a large number of significant architectural artifacts for this museum and had hopes of building it on the East St. Louis riverfront overlooking one of the greatest pieces of architecture in the Gateway Arch. I realize this museum does not adhere to the westward expansion theme but I would like to see the NPS design that area to allow this museum some space adjacent to the NPS grounds.
I am submitting a comment invited by an article that I saw in the Post Dispatch. I would like to see the arch illuminated every night . I know that this is not energy efficient, but it is a national landmark. When people fly into the city at nightfall, it would make such a meaningful statement.
Please keep the Arch grounds park-like and green — no amusement park features. What is needed is safe pedestrian access from the downtown area.
Removing I-70 from downtown St. Louis is the only idea that will create additional connections bewteen the city and the Arch grounds. From the competition manual: “This Competition is about connections and weaving an urban park into the city fabric of St. Louis.”
More infrastructure, whether a lid over the Interstate, pedestrian bridges, tunnels or other means simply add barriers to the landscape, further separating us, the people of St. Louis, from our park and riverfront.
The National Park Service wants the Interstate removed. Let’s remove it now and set the stage for the park to be part of our city and contribute to the economic vitality of the region.
No additional amenity will draw people to the Arch grounds if getting there continues to present the visitor with a sunken Interstate, an elevated Interstate, on-ramps, off-ramps and green Interstate signs the size of semi-trailers.
The attached photo is not what one should see when trying to get to the Arch grounds. And again, this area would not be helped by a three-block lid. Let’s transform our downtown and fulfill the challenge of this competition. Let’s remove I-70 and reconnect our city!
My wife and I fully support the idea of replacing the depressed lanes of I-70 with a boulevard once the new Mississippi River Bridge is opened. We also support the idea that the deck of the Eads Bridge be converted to bike/ped use only. Current and projected traffic counts indicate that this is possible. The Eads Bridge should be added to the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial including both sides of the river.
Together these ideas will unify and connect the National Park and the surrounding areas.
I think the highway is outdated & an eyesore. Removing it would really open up the region. Also, anything that would make the area more pedestrian friendly is a must. We took a group of students downtown for a walking tour and it was hazardous.
I final hope the plan will include tearing down the unsightly portion of I-70. Don’t do a half-way job on this. Make it look good.
The section of I-70 between Cass Ave and Poplar Street needs to be removed. More info at www.citytoriver.org
Please include the removal of I-70 downtown as part of the competition. I’m sure you understand the multitude of reasons why this is absolutely imperative for the success of St. Louis’s downtown, so I am here to help clarify the public support behind the City-to-River initiative. St. Louis is one good decision away from a real revival. Please take this step.
To truly reconnect the Arch grounds with downtown St. Louis, we should remove the section of I-70 that passes through downtown [depressed lanes] and replace it with a boulevard/parkway similar to Kingshighway at Barnes Hospital. I know that the US Park Service is considering this option–in St. Louis and elsewhere–and that this is a wonderful opportunity to revitalize the historic connection between downtown and the Riverfront. Do NOT build that silly “lid” over the highway–that it NOT a solution: It costs too much, and it will NOT accomplish the greater goal.
I was at ‘meet the design teams’ presentation and was disappointed when one team talked about celebrating barriers and making them more bearable. I dont favor putting lipstick on a pig. We need to understand infrastructure mistakes of the past and correct them now. I strongly favor removing I-70 and letting downtown organically grow towards the river.
I would like to stress the importance of removing the I-70 trench and overpass that physically and psychologically divides our city from the arch and the river. On a personal note, I decided to try walking my dog to the arch grounds from the south. Removing the highway and reconnecting the street grid at all points connected to the National Park is essential to making people feel welcome in St. Louis. Simply placing an overpriced “bandage” i.e. lid or tunnel over the highway will not solve any problems for the residents of St. Louis. I have never felt welcome to enjoy the arch grounds as a resident. With the highway and adjacent parking garage, it is just a pass-through for tourists on their way to another destination. Keep them downtown by removing the depressed lanes and overpass of I-70. Street-level retail and arch/river view properties are exactly what is needed on Memorial Boulevard.
The section of I-70 between Cass Ave and Poplar Street needs to be removed and replaced with an at-grade level Blvd. More info here: www.citytoriver.org
The design has to include a boulevard with the highway totally removed. Something that really lives up to the significance of the Arch and the river.
I would like plead with you to please support the City to River Project and the removal of I-70 through downtown. I think it would make our city better and help support economic growth by forcing people to drive through downtown and not simply bypass it. Besides making the city more visually appealing, it would also allow people to walk easily and more importantly make it an interesting walk towards our treasured Arch. I hope you at least seriously consider this proposal.
I support the removal of I-70 from the riverfront as part of the comprehensive plan for the arch grounds.
Over the course of a century a community took shape on the riverfront in St. Louis. In turn, what happened there shaped the future of the nation. As those years of destiny unfolded, St. Louis came to see itself as the capital, the great center of the Midwest.
THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE GATEWAY ARCH
Over the course of a century a community took shape on the riverfront in St. Louis. In turn, what happened there shaped the future of the nation. As those years of destiny unfolded, St. Louis came to see itself as the capital, the great center of the Midwest.
But then, the currents of history changed. The river of history cut a new path and bypassed that community. Chicago, not St. Louis, became the capital of the Midwest.
Ever so gradually, the riverfront was forgotten. Then it decayed. Finally, it became an embarrassment to the still thriving, but nationally less important community that had grown up around it following its first century of greatness.
In that larger community, the embarrassment was deep. It was accompanied by amnesia, a defense mechanism to deal with the intensity of its embarrassment. The amnesia took the form of conventional wisdoms: the riverfront is obsolete with regard to technological advances in transportation; the riverfront is economically obsolete in terms of its building stock; the riverfront is out of date in comparison to current styles of architecture.
All these conventional wisdoms were, of course, true. However, they took hold not because they were true, but because they addressed the deep psychic need to mask the profound sense of loss that weighed so heavily on the community, a loss for which the decayed riverfront was a constant reminder.
And then the great depression arrived. Luther Ely Smith, a man of great vision and a deeply respected leader in that deeply embarrassed community remembered that first century of greatness and was appalled by its decadent reflection in the mirror of the increasingly abandoned riverfront. He dreamed of something to replace the decadence, something that would somehow bring back to life that lost century of greatness. He organized a national design competition to create a new vision for the riverfront.
And, of course, he succeeded with the Gateway Arch. But there was a cost.
A city’s built environment is nothing less than the accretion of its history. Whenever elements of that environment are wiped away, the material record of that history is lost. When the riverfront was cleared after 1939, the elements that were lost were the very elements Luther Ely Smith sought so hard to recover.
Any built environment tells the story of its history. But it's also true that it tells that story in a peculiar language, an arcane language that only people interested in history and those whose personal memories are embedded in its buildings can easily understand. Still, despite its weaknesses, it is by far the best language for telling the story of a community. When it’s silenced, other languages must be found if the story is to be remembered at all.
Today, a second design competition for the riverfront is in progress. This competition presents a magnificent opportunity for St. Louis and it’s already generated intense excitement. Most of the excitement focuses on possibilities for new connections between the arch grounds and the rest of the city. However, with the original built environment of the riverfront long since gone and forgotten, the hidden challenge of the competition is to find the next best language to tell the lost story. Then, and only then, can the amnesia that has prevailed for so long finally be healed.
To help the teams understand, from a personal standpoint, what the Arch stands for and the values it represents to our region and our nation’s history, please share your thoughts, stories, photos and video. A selection of entries will be posted to the Web site and shared with the competitors.
