This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 18, 2011 - The MVVA plan for the Arch seemed to be a good choice. It focused on solving the big problems, and it had the potential to be improved as it was refined.
In some ways, there has been improvement. Parking will be removed from the Arch grounds, and Memorial Drive will cease to be a through street between Chestnut and Market. But these two changes do not lead to effective results.
Removing the north garage allows more freedom to develop this important area. However, nothing in the plan would intensify uses in this area as required by one of three primary goals states in the competition to "create attractions to promote extended visitation to the Arch, the City and the River."
The grass amphitheater, event lawn and child's garden are not sufficient to attract visitors of all ages in all seasons. This area needs uses such as an exhibition space where the arts and other institutions can provide exhibits and performances unique to the region. We have excellent cultural institutions in St. Louis, and they can increase their presence through venues on the Arch grounds. It could be supported by restaurants, cafes and bars overlooking the river and Eads Bridge. This area of the Arch grounds and the closed off Washington Avenue can also become the main pedestrian path to the river.
The center of the Arch grounds, however, must meet another competition goal by "honoring the National Historic Landmark." The central focus is on Saarinen's Arch but the landscape design by Dan Kiley is also significant. The MVVA plan introduces a natural planting theme to the area around the two ponds that is counter to Kiley's controlled use of plant materials. This seems inappropriate for a memorial at the center of the city.
The Arch grounds separate the city from the river, and the plan does not do enough to address this. Closing Memorial Drive between Market and Chestnut does not contribute enough to the goal of weaving connections and transitions from the City and the Arch grounds to the River.
The lid over I-70 will be an improvement, but Memorial Drive traffic would still flow along the north and south edges. We need to open the whole east edge of downtown to the Arch grounds along Memorial Drive by eliminating the through traffic between Spruce and Washington. Memorial Drive, reconstituted as a pedestrian friendly retail street, would "weave together the fabric of the city and the Arch grounds to the river" with direct access onto the Arch grounds. What is now the back side of downtown could be transformed into the front side facing the Arch. After the completion of the new Mississippi River bridge, I-70 should be eliminated from this area.
There are convincing reasons why some of the changes noted above would be difficult. But the Arch is a once-in-a-city's-lifetime development and we now have one chance in a lifetime to make the most of it. The MVVA plan was a good start, but the refinement didn't go far enough.
The problem is deeper and more systemic than something that can be solved by adding attractions and changing traffic patterns. It is illustrated by the gondola ride that would take people across the river primarily to visit the existing geyser fountain. People would board in a remote area of limited access and the gondolas would run parallel to the noise and traffic of the Poplar Street Bridge, probably costing more than it can contribute to the plan. It is scheduled for completion in 2015, while, oddly, the bike and pedestrian crossing at Eads Bridge, which is part of the loop system with the gondola, is put off until after 2015.
The Arch improvement is a great project, an extremely important project and a costly project. It will require region-wide cooperation, commitment and support. It has taken a lot of hard work by many people to get to the refined MVVA plan. However, we all need to be able to look at the final plan and say, "That's going to work! That's going to do it!" and "That's a good use of our funds!"
It might be helpful to open the planning process and widen participation. This could be accomplished with a Professional Advisory Committee including members of the design, development and planning community, major institutions, corporations and nonprofit organizations. Their fresh eyes in combination with the City Arch River 2015 Foundation members and the Technical Advisory Group might lead to the rethinking of the plan's market, financing and design aspects.
Implementing the MVVA plan as presented would improve the Arch grounds. But would it accomplish the most important goals of The City + The Arch + The River Competition? Would it really promote extended visitation, honor the memorial and weave together the fabric of the city with the Arch and the river? Without the public confidence that can come from a better plan, only those parts of the plan that are easy, inexpensive or have a funding source are likely to be built. We need an improved MVVA plan that will be completely and enthusiastically implemented by 2015.
William Albinson, AIA, is a principal partner with TeamFour/Saur - Architects.