RSS Feed
- The Arch Never Happened
- Take Notice
- Over It
- The View From South Side National Bank
- Things That Won't Happen
- Attention Bikers
- Lucas Park Revisited
- Graffiti Isn't Art
- Home of the Poor
- Of The Past
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- October 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
Yesterday's post and comment by Steve Patterson had me asking myself "What would St. Louis have been like if the Arch hadn't been constructed?" Is this blasphemous thinking, or the beginnings of a dialog about how we can better utilize or riverfront? Not sure yet, but great ideas can't happen without off the wall questions.
I love the Arch. I honestly think it is one of the most beautiful examples of architectural sculpture this side of sliced bread. That said, how good is if for the City. It brings in tourists who stay in our hotels and eat in our restaurants, but let's say instead of acres of parkland downtown, we had warehouses full of residents and stores full of goods for those people to buy...which scenario is better?
Granted, who knows what would have happened to the blocks of industrial space along the riverfront, it could have further deteriorated and created a huge problem for St. Louis' CBD. But, for arguments sake, lets say that it is a healthy portion of downtown. What a change to the face of downtown that would be. Downtown St. Louis would be denser and kiss the river. Maybe a healthy riverfront district would have prevented one of St. Louis' worst mistakes ever, the placement of Highway 70.
A riverfront district with residents bustling from store to store is a reality in 2007 St. Louis. Can you imagine instead of a fucking riverfront casino we had balconies full of diners enjoying a view of the river? How amazing would it be to be taking a stroll down your street and seeing the Eads Bridge spanning over your neighborhood? Instead of having the fake nostalgia that passes for entertainment on the riverfront, what if we had the real thing?
The Arch has done nothing to prevent St. Louis' suburban westward expansion, it didn't prevent a mass exodus of people from our city limits that we are only now overcoming, it doesn't lower crime and it doesn't keep jobs downtown and its not what is bringing downtown back today, what is the Arch's value? It has been mutilated and whored into every freaking business logo from the city to St. Charles county...so is the Arch more than a brand, more than a gimmick to get people to come St. Louis, or does it really mean something to the residents of St. Louis?
The Arch put St. Louis on the map, so to speak, but was its construction really good for us? So far it seems like a mixed bag. At any rate, it's interesting to think about what could have been.
I love the Arch. I honestly think it is one of the most beautiful examples of architectural sculpture this side of sliced bread. That said, how good is if for the City. It brings in tourists who stay in our hotels and eat in our restaurants, but let's say instead of acres of parkland downtown, we had warehouses full of residents and stores full of goods for those people to buy...which scenario is better?
Granted, who knows what would have happened to the blocks of industrial space along the riverfront, it could have further deteriorated and created a huge problem for St. Louis' CBD. But, for arguments sake, lets say that it is a healthy portion of downtown. What a change to the face of downtown that would be. Downtown St. Louis would be denser and kiss the river. Maybe a healthy riverfront district would have prevented one of St. Louis' worst mistakes ever, the placement of Highway 70.
A riverfront district with residents bustling from store to store is a reality in 2007 St. Louis. Can you imagine instead of a fucking riverfront casino we had balconies full of diners enjoying a view of the river? How amazing would it be to be taking a stroll down your street and seeing the Eads Bridge spanning over your neighborhood? Instead of having the fake nostalgia that passes for entertainment on the riverfront, what if we had the real thing?
The Arch has done nothing to prevent St. Louis' suburban westward expansion, it didn't prevent a mass exodus of people from our city limits that we are only now overcoming, it doesn't lower crime and it doesn't keep jobs downtown and its not what is bringing downtown back today, what is the Arch's value? It has been mutilated and whored into every freaking business logo from the city to St. Charles county...so is the Arch more than a brand, more than a gimmick to get people to come St. Louis, or does it really mean something to the residents of St. Louis?
The Arch put St. Louis on the map, so to speak, but was its construction really good for us? So far it seems like a mixed bag. At any rate, it's interesting to think about what could have been.
2 comments:
By 
Seeing St. Louis, at
6:16 PM
I had actually never thought about this before. Thanks for bringing up an interesting debate. I can tell that you have a lot of great vision for what St. Louis could be. I hope that you will find a way to implement some of those visions. We will always be in need of passionate people like you.
By
M, at
6:33 PM
I've been blasted by natives many a time for bringing this subject up and holding the opinion that Patterson does about the subject. I love the arch and it does bring national recognition to the city, but I strongly believe that something similar, or the arch itself, could have somehow still been built while leaving an entire neighborhood (original downtown) intact. It is hard to believe that leveling that entire area was the right decision.