By  MattHurst, at 4:57 AM

caught your photoshop work over on flickr, and knew to follow something post-like over here. your question has my mind rolling, but yet i still feel we have less to show but more to offer than a monument. still, a highrise or two wouldn't hurt, i know

By  Urban Review, at 8:40 AM

Well, I'm in the camp that thinks the Arch is a beautiful sculpture that never should have been. That is, the razing 40 city blocks of the old riverfront never should have happened. A fully intact industrial riverfront converted to living spaces, bars and shops would have been quite special. Like nearly every other city around, in the mid 20th century as river traffic died no value was seen in these early buildings. The pattern of not seeing value in old buidings has continued to the present with some notable exceptions.

Had we not razed the riverfront and not built the Arch I think we'd be doing just fine. Of course, we'll never really know.

By  Joe, at 2:05 PM

Remember, the riverfront was all demolished in 1939-40, and then all Federal dollars got redirected to the War effort. So, the site sat vacant, used as overflow parking for downtown workers and as a Public Service Co. bus pooling area, for over 20 years!

The Gateway Arch plan by Saarinen wasn't even selected until 1947.

So, even if we hadn't built the Arch itself, we had already demolished the buildings. There were other proposed museum designs, none quite as dramatic as the Arch in the impact on the skyline.

Obviously, things would be different if the riverfront buildings had not been demolished, but if everything else (interstate highways, Gateway Mall, etc.) had still happened, I suspect much of that area would have been gradually demolished anyway.