Durable Growth

The justification for civic amenities

Gateway Arch under contstruction

Gateway Arch under construction. Image from AP, 1965, on NPR.

A loyal reader (it’s a required duty for younger sisters) recently emailed me with a question.  She provided a link to a National Public Radio story on the history of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis.  She asked my thoughts on the question posed by the article, whether a major amenity like the Gateway Arch justified the removal of 40 blocks of aging urban fabric.

I don’t know the entire history of the Gateway Arch, so my answer isn’t definitive.  But based on what I know, my answer is “almost assuredly not”.  Although that doesn’t mean that projects like the Gateway Arch are never justified.

How many people lived in the demolition area and the relocations that were forced upon them for the Gateway Arch are key variables in my answer.  The era of the Arch was also the era of Robert Moses.

And the era of Robert Moses was the era of large housing projects.  It was a time when we convinced ourselves that “towers in the park” were a better housing solution for lower income people than the messy, urban streets on which they then lived.  Time proved that the idea was deeply flawed.  And the shortcomings were nowhere more evident than in St. Louis.

If the relocations required for the Gateway Arch resulted in projects like Pruitt-Igoe, then the Arch couldn’t have been justified.  Even if the neighborhoods that were removed for the Arch were raggedy and in need of work, they could never have been as poor a living situation as the projects of St. Louis quickly became.

This isn’t to deny that the Arch had value, both as a monument to civic spirit and as a tourist attraction.  Indeed, I rankle at the description in the article of the Arch as non-utilitarian.  Although some have more than others, virtually every public work has some utility, whether in providing a place to enjoy nature, attracting tourists, or carrying away sewage.  But it’s nearly impossible to argue that the value of the Arch could have exceeded the value of the neighborhoods lost.

But that doesn’t mean that projects like the Arch can never be justified.  Like so many decisions in the public realm, it’s a matter of benefit and cost.  Prepare cautious, reasonable estimates of the likely benefits, such as the ticket sales and increased tourism from the Gateway Arch.  Compare those to cautious, reasonable estimates of the cost of relocations, including the value of severed social capital.  And a benefit/cost decision can be made.  And some projects will be justified.  But probably not the Arch.

It’s much like the discussion of sports stadiums that I put forth a few months back.  Sports stadiums, and Gateway Arches, have value.  But proponents tend to exaggerate the benefits, which leads to poor decision-making.  And in the case of the Arch, I suspect that proponents, seduced by the tower-in-the-park vision of housing projects, also underestimated the human costs.

Some may question how I can call for people to make the best decisions with the information at hand and also condemn the Gateway Arch relocations.  Weren’t the public housing projects of the time the best available concept?  Is there a difference between the conviction during the 1960s about the value of public housing and my arguments of today about urbanism?  Is it fair to condemn one in hindsight while promoting the other?

But there is a key difference between the tower in the park and urbanism.  The tower in the park was a wholly invented theory about how people should live.  According to Tom Wolfe, it began in an act of revulsion over the violence of World War I.  It had no basis in how people like to live.

On the other hand, urbanism is very much about people really do live.  It’s based in a look back as what land uses worked well, before we were sidetracked by the tower in the park and its successor theories.  And that’s a huge difference.

Is my Gateway Arch answer definitive?  Heck, no.  I’ve read little about the Arch, nor have I visited it.  I’ve never even set foot in Missouri.  But my sister asked an interesting question and I answered as best I could with the knowledge I have.  If someone has a more informed opinion, feel free to jump in.  I’m always willing to be educated.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. – Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Written by Dave Alden

Dave Alden

Dave Alden is a Registered Civil Engineer. A University of California graduate, he has worked on energy and land-use projects in California, Oregon, and Washington. He was also the president of a minor league baseball team for two seasons. He lives on the west side of Petaluma with his wife and three dogs. The blog that he writes can be found at http://northbaydesignkit.blogspot.com.

4 comments to The justification for civic amenities

  • Bryan

    The Arch replaced the Warehouse District which was full of commercial and industrial buildings. No significant number of residents were displaced, if any, that I’m aware of. I would like to see any evidence to the contrary, because it appears to be entirely absent from your post and the NPR piece. Your musings, while well-intentioned, appear to be based on fiction.

  • Steve Wilde

    Assuming that the amount of urban housing really was destroyed as is indicated in this article, how much would be still standing today? The whole area is surrounded by commercial interests and a gigantic interstate today. I propose that any lower class urban housing would not be there today regardless of the Arch. I’d rather have an Arch to differentiate us from… oh… say Kansas City than to have a multitude of barely surviving commercial buildings.

    • Steve, thanks for the comment. I apologize for my slow response. I was at a conference from which I’ve only recently returned.

      Your points are well-taken. But there a couple of points to be considered. If the Arch hadn’t been built, are we sure that the freeway would have followed the same alignment? Might the freeway have ended up closer to the river, not isolating the neighborhood? Not that I’m a fan of freeways separating towns from water, but it’s a pattern that has been followed in many other cities.

      Also, you and I may come from different perspectives on urban resiliency. In the West, perhaps due to population pressures, an aging warehouse district of one generation is the hip, creative class community of the next. South of Market in San Francisco is one example. The Granary District in Salt Lake City may soon be another. Given the deeper economic malaise of the Midwest, your thoughts on St. Louis and Kansas City may be accurate. But I wouldn’t give up on the possibility that rising tide of urbanism won’t eventually affect those communities also.

  • Dave Alden

    Bryan, thanks for the comment.

    You may well be right about the number of residents who were displaced. As I noted, my response was based on the conditions that are typical for older neighborhoods, not specific to the Gateway Arch.

    In my on-line research, I found good coverage of the railroad realignment, but far less on the residential issues. However, this is reference to a pair of residential hotels. Also, even warehouse districts tend to have a surprising number of residents occupying the nooks and crannies. Also, it was an era in which residential relocations were often given short shrift in the media.

    But if your comment is based on solid information, then I’ll readily agree that the number of relocations was less than might have been typical and that the social capital of the neighborhood was limited.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>