They should have left a handful of them next to the bridges (in addition to Laclede's landing) and they could have served as prime locations for restaurants, museums, hotels, gift shops, and music venues. It would be a very convenient location, not to mention those buildings were beautiful.
For reference, the Arch grounds are the size of the French Quarter in New Orleans. When it was decided to demolished the St. Louis riverfront, the area has thousands of residents and hundreds of operating businesses.
The last photo in the PD set is really dramatic to me. You can see a wide swath of downtown gone, MIll Creek Valley at the top left gone, and Pruitt-Igoe in the top right (now gone). It's like they dropped three bombs in the heart of the city. Depressing.
I feel like there is a lot of hand wringing among my fellow urbanists over the fact that we have the iconic Gateway Arch rather than the historic buildings that sat on the riverfront until the 1930's. While I get a little misty eyed too seeing those photos of those blocks think about this--regardless of whether or not the Arch was built the massive exodus to suburbia would STILL have happened. Now perhaps the area where the Arch now stands would still be intact and occupied. But would Soulard? Or Lafayette Square? I simply don't think all of these districts could have survived the dynamics that occurred in our older cities in the second half of the 20th Century. In a perfect world they would have, but let's be realistic.
Frankly I'd rather we have the Arch AND Soulard and Lafayette Square as they exist now rather than the cul de sac nightmare that was proposed in the 1950's.
And I really do think that's what would have happened had the Arch never been built.
^ But that assumes that retaining the district would have changed nothing else. It wouldn't have changed everything, but perhaps it would have helped to retain more residents and businesses in the city. That would have benefited all neighborhoods. If there were only going to be 319K in the city in 2010 no matter what, then maybe it's a trade-off, but that's not how things work. Imagine as well if Mill Creek Valley were still standing. It had the potential to be a healthy neighborhood and not just draw from other areas. Residents left central cities everywhere in the second half of the 20th Century, but to what degree is exceptionally important. What if "only" 50% had left STL instead of 70%?
If the Arch had been constructed on the East St. Louis riverfront instead, we would have had this amazing monument looming over an intact cast iron warehouse district (ideally speaking). That, to me, would have been the ideal scenario.
Now, you're right to ask the question of "what if" in a cautionary way. While I often want to say the biggest mistake this city ever made was to demolish the huge Mill Creek area for industrial parks and green space...I also wonder what would have happened if it somehow never got reinvested and was just slowly rotting today.
Granted, I'd have taken that chance were I in charge at the time...but, as in the case of the Archgrounds, I'll guess we'll never truly know.
Generally, people want to tear down anything that is not CURRENTLY in use and earning money. I recall people wanting to raze Union Station in the late 1970s early 80's arguing that it isn't being occupied or making money currently, and should therefore be razed. I'm sure people said the same about Lacledes Landing at one time. And I recall the uproar from a prominent local sports writer when Mayor Schoemehl refused to raze Couples Station buildings for parking in exchange for a new "free" arena AB would build where Busch III is now. (I don't know what "free" means. They're all free if they were built without my money.)
But for the long term, unless the replacement structure significantly improves the Architectural level of the community and can't reasonably fit on an existing vacant site, it is almost always better to leave a structure vacant and wait for another generation to come along with all new ideas on how to reuse it, rather than tear it down.
Little did anyone know that this Golden Age of architecture and building was over and that it would be impossible to produce structures with the same materials, craftsmanship and just plain art that they did back then.
Lee, I used to think that too till I read Campbell's book on the arch. Many people knew the value of this architecture. They spoke up to save it then as well. One architectural historian claimed the cast iron collection at the riverfront was second only to SOHO in New York. When the riverfront was cleared, there was no coherent plans as to what was going to be built which made this all the more insane.
This idea probably would have never worked, and it probably isn't any good, but wouldn't it have been cool if the city could have limited the destruction of buildings on the riverfront, but still put the Arch where it stands today?
I think the Arch is cool, but what if its legs emerged out of a riverfront district? What if these historic buildings surrounded its legs? I almost believe the Arch would look even more impressive.
They should have done this and installed some sort of building height restriction where the Arch grounds are now. The museum could still be underground, leaving the area between its legs an incredible urban park with modern amenities.
I think it'd be absolutely incredible to stop by a coffee shop just feet from the base of one of the Arch legs ... or to book a hotel room sandwiched between the riverfront and arch ... or to walk along some artsy boulevard with boutiques and apartments and restaurants within minutes (walking) of the Arch. Imagine all the rooftop decks you'd have on restaurants and bars in an area like the one I have described.
What if you could go up to the rooftop deck of a restaurant and eat in the shadow of the gateway arch?
You can't tell me there wouldn't be a market for that.
I think my ultimate fantasy would be for the faithful recreation of the Chouteau House under the Arch legs (assuming it would fit but I'm not positive as it was huge) with more of the cast iron beauties and street grid to the west. south and north. I believe the federal customs house where the Dred Scott case was heard was already cleared before the arch land clearance, but that would have been particularly nice to have been preserved (this would have been just west of the Arch, I believe). The surface level, more modest Third Street Expressway still exists in this fantasy, btw, and not an interstate.
KansasCitian wrote:
I think the Arch is cool, but what if its legs emerged out of a riverfront district? What if these historic buildings surrounded its legs? I almost believe the Arch would look even more impressive.
Does anybody wish they would have done this?
In retrospect, I think lots of people would have loved that idea. Of course, it was a completely different world 80 years ago when the project was developed.
BTW, my avatar is a photo of a scale model I built of The Old Rock House, one of the historic buildings that was torn down for the Arch. The Rock House was actually disassembled and stored, and the Park Service intended to rebuild it after the Arch was finished (without the third-floor mansard roof, which was a later addition). Through the years, alas, the pieces were lost, along with the opportunity. There's a re-construction of one corner of the building in the museum in the basement of the Old Courthouse.
