World's Tallest Monument

gary kreie · PostJun 02, 2011#12011-06-02T20:59+00:00

I happened to notice that several sites including Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers, and Answers.com declare The Gateway Arch to be the tallest monument in the WORLD. the Gateway Arch web site and others have declared it to be the merely the tallest national monument in the US -- taller than the Washington Monument and the Statue of Liberty. But we seem reluctant to declare it to be the tallest monument in the world for some reason.

If we are going to be a World Class City -- and we have something that people from around the WORLD might want to see -- we need to tout the things we have that are significant on a World Class level. The biggest, best, tallest, whatever, in the WORLD, not just in Missouri or even the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ta ... _the_world
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 831AAau5Hr
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_w ... t_monument

The Arch Museum should create a modern version of this 1884 chart for monuments of the world and sell it.

Its funny -- when you go to the Washington Monument page on Wikipedia, the first paragraph proudly declare that it is the WORLD'S tallest stone structure, and the WORLD'S tallest obelisk. It doesn't mention being the 2nd tallest US Monument -- second to the Arch.

Conversely -- when you go to the Gateway Arch page on Wikipedia, the first paragraph just says it is the tallest manmade monument in the U.S.

gone corporate · PostJun 29, 2011#22011-06-29T17:54+00:00

I bet that, should there be an artist out there who can competently draw a poster like the one above to include the 20th & 21st Centuries (i.e. including the Arch with the Great Pyramid below it), then they'd sell a whole lot of them at the Arch Museum. And online, and in other retail stores across StL, and to fans of modernist architecture.

moorlander · PostJun 30, 2011#32011-06-30T00:40+00:00

They sell those types of posters @ www.skyscaperpage.com

Guest · PostJul 11, 2011#42011-07-11T04:47+00:00

I think it depends on how you define "monument."

If you define it as "something erected in memory of a person, event, etc., as a building, pillar, or statue", then I think the Arch is the tallest monument in the world.

If you define it as "any building, megalith, etc., surviving from a past age, and regarded as of historical or archaeological importance", then I think the Eiffel Tower is the tallest monument in the world.

The Eiffel Tower is called a monument in several locations on its Wikipedia page, and the Wikipedia article on "Monument" contains a picture of the Eiffel Tower.

So, I think it's safe to say that the arch is UNAMBIGUOUSLY the tallest monument in the United States, and DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DEFINE THE WORD the tallest monument in the world.

gary kreie · PostJul 12, 2011#52011-07-12T01:19+00:00

Guest wrote:I think it depends on how you define "monument."

If you define it as "something erected in memory of a person, event, etc., as a building, pillar, or statue", then I think the Arch is the tallest monument in the world.

If you define it as "any building, megalith, etc., surviving from a past age, and regarded as of historical or archaeological importance", then I think the Eiffel Tower is the tallest monument in the world.

The Eiffel Tower is called a monument in several locations on its Wikipedia page, and the Wikipedia article on "Monument" contains a picture of the Eiffel Tower.

So, I think it's safe to say that the arch is UNAMBIGUOUSLY the tallest monument in the United States, and DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DEFINE THE WORD the tallest monument in the world.

Type "worlds tallest monument" into Google. Weed out all the ones with qualifiers, and all the remaining entries list the Gateway Arch in St. Louis as the World's Tallest Monument. Would you list the London Eye as a monument? The Eiffel Tower is a stationary London Eye built as an observation tower for a World's Fair. It doesn't seem to show up in any of the tallest monument rankings.

We St. Louisans seem to go out of our way to not take credit for legitimate claims. I see now that Memphis is claiming to be the birthplace of Rock and Roll in all of its promotions. And so is Cleveland. When you Google "father of rock and roll", you get several names including Alan Freed, the DJ who coined the words but didn't play or compose, Chuck Berrry, Johnnie Johnson, Bill Haley, Ike Turner, Bo Diddly and even Buddy Holly. Three of the list are from St. Louis. Most people credit Chuck Berry, and I agree. He created the riffs that we first identify as Rock and Roll when he translated Johnnie Johnson's piano riffs to the guitar at the Cosmo Club in East St. Louis. Objective viewers agree. Check out NPRs broadcast, "Chuck Berry: Father of Rock and Roll".
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89184737

If Chuck Berry is the Father of Rock and Roll, wouldn't his town be the birthplace? He didn't spawn the genre in Memphis or Cleveland. So why are we not claiming to be the birthplace of Rock and Roll? Or at least East St. Louis? Is it our fear of self-promotion?