This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Jan. 27, 2009 - As the National Park Service inches forward with plans for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, also known as the Gateway Arch grounds, the prospect of financial help from the Danforth Foundation seems increasingly iffy.
The stumbling block? Should there be another major museum on the Arch grounds? While the Danforth Foundation has been emphatic in its support of this alternative, it does not seem to be a central feature of any of the four possible plans being circulated by the National Park Service.
While "we still hope that they (the Danforth Foundation) can be supportive in this planning process," Arch Superintendent Tom Bradley said this week, "we do not see that a new museum on park grounds makes a lot of sense."
"Something that big and above ground "would cut into the limited amount of green space that we have," Bradley added. Plus, he said, "We already have a large museum like that" beneath the Arch "and a lot of new museums are no longer sustainable." After an initial surge of visitors, he said, attendance drops "and then cities have to subsidize them."
Four plans
The growing polarization of positions has come in the aftermath of last week's presentation of the Park Service's latest version of the four possible plans. For the first time, it included some hefty estimated costs. The foundation responded that it doesn't think its vision of a new above-ground museum at a prominent location on the Arch grounds fits with what the Park Service has in mind.
"Our commitment now is simply this," the Danforth Foundation said in a statement last week. "If and when the NPS (National Park Service) comes back with a proposal we can support, we will do so to the best of our financial ability at the time."
This week, responding to questions posed by The Beacon, the foundation clarified its position. In an e-mail response from a spokesman, the foundation said that if the Park Service's final plan does not permit the major new attraction, it will not help pay for a deck or "lid" over Interstate 70 -- or any other improvements that it and the city have long favored.
"The Danforth Foundation believes that just building a lid, without the major attraction, would be like building a 'bridge to nowhere.' The Danforth Foundation would be pleased to see a lid and other improvements at the Arch. But the Danforth Foundation has said from the beginning that it wants to invest its funds in something transformative for the region. The foundation believes Arch improvements short of a major new attraction will not be transformative."
Little detail
Sandra Washington, chief planner at the Park Service's regional office in Omaha, said this week, as she has before, that the planning underway does leave "room for a museum, and there is maybe room for an above-ground museum." She added, however, "that what we don't have from the (Danforth) foundation are details" of what it has in mind.
So far, the foundation has been vague about the details. But it said in its e-mail this week that it would be an above-ground "architecturally significant" facility with a "theme consistent with Westward expansion" that "might occupy about three acres, in a prominent location near downtown, possibly at Pine (Street) and Memorial (Drive), a location that would be a mirror image to the location of the Old Cathedral." The foundation initially said it would contribute up to $50 million to help build it but in November, backed away from that saying its investment portfolio had declined. Earlier, it had said the Park Services' planning "raises questions as to whether such an attraction is possible."
What Bradley says "is much more exciting" is essentially the Park Service's preferred plan. It includes more activities, events and services for visitors on the grounds, and a national design competition to find ways to better connect the grounds with the rest of downtown and even to the Illinois side of the river.
The boundaries for the competition, specified for the first time in the latest version of the preferred plan, includes areas around the edges of the Arch grounds, Luther Ely Smith Square, and about 70 acres across the river. The central part with the Arch and ponds would remain essentially as is, except that the Park Service wants to renovate exhibits in the museum beneath the Arch. Another of the four plans includes expanding that museum.
"We need to put more activities on the grounds, and make the edges of the park softer and integrate it better with downtown. We need to energize the grounds perhaps with sidewalk cafes to make downtown interface better with the park. We need to somehow reinvigorate the riverfront. That is all achievable and can be very successful," Bradley said, "without the controversy of building another museum in the park."
The planning that's underway, initiated about a year ago after a mighty push from former Sen. John C. Danforth and his family's philanthropic foundation, and Mayor Francis Slay, could result in a final plan by early summer.
Public Input
The latest document from the Park Service that's evolved after numerous public meetings here, and the collection of comments from across the country, is a whopper. Within its 150 or so pages are details and environmental impact statements for each of the four possible plans and cost estimates.
The No Action plan (Alternative 1) would cost zero. But at the high end, the Park into the City plan (Alternative 5) that features remaking part of Memorial Drive into pedestrian plazas, a new research and educational facility with the existing museum's archives, and replacing parking on the grounds with a visitor transportation system, would cost nearly $380 million.
The Portals plan (Alternative 4), which includes new entrances on all sides of the Arch grounds, an at-grade deck over the recessed highway, water taxi service between both banks of the river and underground parking on the grounds, would cost just over $368.5 million. The Park Service's preferred plan (Alternative 3), that focuses on the design competition, more programs and activities and better connections between the grounds and its surrounding, would cost at least $154.6 million. But that doesn't include the cost of anything that might be added as a result of the design competition.
The Park Service also listed separately for each plan additional "deferred maintenance" costs of $17 million to $22 million to cover everything from repairing cracked, worn-down staircases between the Arch and riverfront to the sometimes leaking roof at the Old Courthouse. Bradley said those costs represent "if we fixed everything, and brought everything we have (on the Arch grounds) up to snuff."
Between now and March 16, the Park Service plans more public meetings and will be seeking more comments. Once a final plan is in place, it's to be implemented over the next 15 to 20 years with a combination of federal, state and city money, as well as grants and contributions from private groups and foundations.
Chief planner Washington said that even though the Park Service has designated one plan as the preferred one, it is not yet set in stone. "We will look at and read ever single comment that comes in. We want wide public input, comment and review," she said. And that's one reason, she said, that the Park Service prefers the plan with a design competition similar to the one in 1947 won by Eero Saarinen and his team. "We think it makes sense to tap into the broadest range of creativity, go one step further and look at all of the possibilities," she said.
Charlene Prost is a freelance journalist who has long covered city development.