Was there no other location in St. Louis where the Arch could have been constructed? I have to wonder if the riverfront district would have survived intact if that were the case, and instead become an attractive historical attraction with contemporary business opportunity. (The Exchange District in my hometown of Winnipeg is a particularly strong example of this.)
To be fair, any location would have required substantial demolition, and and we would be bemoaning the same outcome. And back then, there wasn't the same appreciation of older buildings—some, like the men I noted, did speak out, but for the most part city leaders and the population as a whole were in favor of clearing out the old in favor of the new.
As much as I mourn the loss of the old riverfront, I have to remind myself that people did save other neighborhoods such as Soulard and Lafayette Square.
And in the end, I think what matters most is that we document, remember, and learn from what happened in the past, so we can do better in the future.
Thanks very much for this article. I have felt from Day One that the Arch was a silver bullet project with the usual elements of grandiosity and lack of nuanced thinking. It attracts a one-time visit from out-of-towners who take a look and never come back. But even accepting the Arch as an design achievement, clearing all 40 acres was the real culprit. Giving c. 15-20 acres to the Arch, with the clear ground level view from the River up to the Capitol that it has partially, and creating a smaller Park would have been reasonable, leaving 20-25 acres of very charming historic buildings to become a 21st century magnet for residents and visitors alike. St. Louis isn't the only city whose architectural history took a big blow from the Urban Renewal mantra, but it has been one of the most damaging. It's never too late for a remedy, though. Proceeding with a rebuild project on those reclaimed acres - using many of the artifacts that still exist in a manner that ties in with the exciting Chouteau's Landing project to the immediate south - would heal the wound while leaving the Arch where it is with an reduced but still attractive Park. What a boon to the City that would be. As the riverfront is productively restored to the north and south, the entire area will become the defining asset of a powerhouse City.
I agree, it would be nice to see some of the old building materials and artifacts used in some way in any new riverfront developments. Unfortunately, much of what was salvaged has been lost. There is still a bit in STL, with some used in the museum under the Arch, and the Missouri Historical Society holds other pieces. But most believe that the lion's share was taken by the Smithsonian and may remain in their vaults, but inaccessible even to researchers. So your idea, while sound, may never come to pass.
I hope you are aware of the National Building Arts Center in Sauget, Illinois (just across the River) which has a large number of the cast iron facade components from the riverfront buildings, as well as many amazing architectural artifacts. I find it odd that the Smithsonian would make the ones they may have inaccessible to anyone, especially researchers. I see no plausible explanation for that. Given the existing components and artifacts, and the photos, drawing, and plans that were documented prior to destruction, the means are there to restore some portion of the riverfront on either side of the Arch. There was an exhibition last year at the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts in St. Louis of some of the artifacts, including one cast-iron column, pulitzerarts.org/events/past/page 4
The NBAC does have a number of cast iron structural pieces from a variety of buildings including the Clemens mansion, but not many from the riverfront buildings. All they have from the riverfront are three lintels, all from the same building. The other materials were acquired later, largely by Larry Giles.
As for the Smithsonian, I suspect the pieces are deep in storage and not accessible to the public (and given the nature of them, it's not like they can just pull something from the collection as if it were a book or painting). It's also possible that when they acquired the pieces they didn't catalog them sufficiently. (It happens even at the best institutions, especially nearly 100 years ago). At any rate, it's frustrating but somewhat understandable.
But I'm glad you got to catch the Pulitzer exhibition - it was a great one, and it was nice to see some of my favorite pieces in a gallery setting!
The idea wasn't that replacement construction would be from actual artifacts; rather, that there is more than sufficient information to create viable living/working urban areas in an informed and historically compatible way for some portion of the Park, preserving the Arch and at least half of its surrounding grounds while addressing the current overemphasis on 'visit-once-and-leave' space. I would prefer not to have the actual idea lost in a barrage of details. I and many other residents of the City believe that learning from past mistakes should be followed by taking action. I agree that it isn't likely for a number of reasons, but perhaps the dynamic attitudes behind the restoration of the Chouteau's Landing area will provide an object lesson.
The loss of the beautiful brick is quite sad. But here's a counternarrative that is also compelling and I want to understand if it has merit.
Many of the buildings had been abandoned during the depression era. IIRC, there was a 40% vacancy rate in the blocks in question when negotiations about the Arch began (source: The Lost St. Louis Riverfront). The wharf district warehouses were already in decline at the turn of the 20th century due to the railroads cutting into the demand for water shipping. Not helping: The Jones Act of 1920 and Dredge Act decreased the global supply of shipping vessels that could legally traverse the Mississippi as well. Did gangs control a lot of what remained? (I'm not sure on this point. Egan's rats were gone, though).
Isn't the alternative world where the Arch is not built, the area around St. Mary of Victories for the *entire* riverfront, as opposed to just most of it?
As the St. Louis population fell for decades after, there still hasn't been enough demand for downtown real estate to cause all the good things we all imagine are possible!
Some of the buildings along the riverfront were vacant, but many were not. There were many businesses as well as apartments in the area. Certainly the Depression hurt the local economy and may have impacted businesses in this area, but it would have equally impacted businesses elsewhere in the city. This was all about boosting real estate values elsewhere and giving both men a big win, not rehabilitating a run-down district.
As for gangs, they operated in various areas in the city, particularly the old Irish neighborhood north of downtown, but they had largely fallen apart by the mid 1920s due to the death of the leaders and informers.
Was there no other location in St. Louis where the Arch could have been constructed? I have to wonder if the riverfront district would have survived intact if that were the case, and instead become an attractive historical attraction with contemporary business opportunity. (The Exchange District in my hometown of Winnipeg is a particularly strong example of this.)
To be fair, any location would have required substantial demolition, and and we would be bemoaning the same outcome. And back then, there wasn't the same appreciation of older buildings—some, like the men I noted, did speak out, but for the most part city leaders and the population as a whole were in favor of clearing out the old in favor of the new.
As much as I mourn the loss of the old riverfront, I have to remind myself that people did save other neighborhoods such as Soulard and Lafayette Square.
And in the end, I think what matters most is that we document, remember, and learn from what happened in the past, so we can do better in the future.
Certainly.
My compliments on a thoroughly researched and well-presented article.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it.
Thanks very much for this article. I have felt from Day One that the Arch was a silver bullet project with the usual elements of grandiosity and lack of nuanced thinking. It attracts a one-time visit from out-of-towners who take a look and never come back. But even accepting the Arch as an design achievement, clearing all 40 acres was the real culprit. Giving c. 15-20 acres to the Arch, with the clear ground level view from the River up to the Capitol that it has partially, and creating a smaller Park would have been reasonable, leaving 20-25 acres of very charming historic buildings to become a 21st century magnet for residents and visitors alike. St. Louis isn't the only city whose architectural history took a big blow from the Urban Renewal mantra, but it has been one of the most damaging. It's never too late for a remedy, though. Proceeding with a rebuild project on those reclaimed acres - using many of the artifacts that still exist in a manner that ties in with the exciting Chouteau's Landing project to the immediate south - would heal the wound while leaving the Arch where it is with an reduced but still attractive Park. What a boon to the City that would be. As the riverfront is productively restored to the north and south, the entire area will become the defining asset of a powerhouse City.
I agree, it would be nice to see some of the old building materials and artifacts used in some way in any new riverfront developments. Unfortunately, much of what was salvaged has been lost. There is still a bit in STL, with some used in the museum under the Arch, and the Missouri Historical Society holds other pieces. But most believe that the lion's share was taken by the Smithsonian and may remain in their vaults, but inaccessible even to researchers. So your idea, while sound, may never come to pass.
I hope you are aware of the National Building Arts Center in Sauget, Illinois (just across the River) which has a large number of the cast iron facade components from the riverfront buildings, as well as many amazing architectural artifacts. I find it odd that the Smithsonian would make the ones they may have inaccessible to anyone, especially researchers. I see no plausible explanation for that. Given the existing components and artifacts, and the photos, drawing, and plans that were documented prior to destruction, the means are there to restore some portion of the riverfront on either side of the Arch. There was an exhibition last year at the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts in St. Louis of some of the artifacts, including one cast-iron column, pulitzerarts.org/events/past/page 4
Of course I'm familiar with the NBAC, and have been there many times (See https://unseenstlouis.substack.com/p/rescuing-architecture for my article about them, and https://unseenstlouis.substack.com/p/unseen-stl-history-talks-nbac for the recap of the talk that Michael Allen and Emery Cox gave at the Unseen STL History Talks).
The NBAC does have a number of cast iron structural pieces from a variety of buildings including the Clemens mansion, but not many from the riverfront buildings. All they have from the riverfront are three lintels, all from the same building. The other materials were acquired later, largely by Larry Giles.
As for the Smithsonian, I suspect the pieces are deep in storage and not accessible to the public (and given the nature of them, it's not like they can just pull something from the collection as if it were a book or painting). It's also possible that when they acquired the pieces they didn't catalog them sufficiently. (It happens even at the best institutions, especially nearly 100 years ago). At any rate, it's frustrating but somewhat understandable.
But I'm glad you got to catch the Pulitzer exhibition - it was a great one, and it was nice to see some of my favorite pieces in a gallery setting!
The idea wasn't that replacement construction would be from actual artifacts; rather, that there is more than sufficient information to create viable living/working urban areas in an informed and historically compatible way for some portion of the Park, preserving the Arch and at least half of its surrounding grounds while addressing the current overemphasis on 'visit-once-and-leave' space. I would prefer not to have the actual idea lost in a barrage of details. I and many other residents of the City believe that learning from past mistakes should be followed by taking action. I agree that it isn't likely for a number of reasons, but perhaps the dynamic attitudes behind the restoration of the Chouteau's Landing area will provide an object lesson.
The loss of the beautiful brick is quite sad. But here's a counternarrative that is also compelling and I want to understand if it has merit.
Many of the buildings had been abandoned during the depression era. IIRC, there was a 40% vacancy rate in the blocks in question when negotiations about the Arch began (source: The Lost St. Louis Riverfront). The wharf district warehouses were already in decline at the turn of the 20th century due to the railroads cutting into the demand for water shipping. Not helping: The Jones Act of 1920 and Dredge Act decreased the global supply of shipping vessels that could legally traverse the Mississippi as well. Did gangs control a lot of what remained? (I'm not sure on this point. Egan's rats were gone, though).
Isn't the alternative world where the Arch is not built, the area around St. Mary of Victories for the *entire* riverfront, as opposed to just most of it?
As the St. Louis population fell for decades after, there still hasn't been enough demand for downtown real estate to cause all the good things we all imagine are possible!
Some of the buildings along the riverfront were vacant, but many were not. There were many businesses as well as apartments in the area. Certainly the Depression hurt the local economy and may have impacted businesses in this area, but it would have equally impacted businesses elsewhere in the city. This was all about boosting real estate values elsewhere and giving both men a big win, not rehabilitating a run-down district.
As for gangs, they operated in various areas in the city, particularly the old Irish neighborhood north of downtown, but they had largely fallen apart by the mid 1920s due to the death of the leaders and informers.
Jackie, congratulations. You are one of the few in this city who has a more complete, detailed understanding of what happened on the riverfront.
Thank you for your kind words. It means a lot!
You are welcome.