Editorial: St. Louis Riverfront Needs New Ideas

On May 6 the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a front-page story that we hope warmed the hearts of folks who have always believed that the city should do something to promote its riverfront. The story suggests numerous ways to attract more people to the Arch grounds and surrounding area. We support that goal.

Interest in the St. Louis riverfront has ebbed over the past few decades, leaving very little that is concrete to attract people. Such is the case in many once-flourishing river cities. Being a trade publication that focuses on the towing industry, it may seem strange that The Waterways Journal cares about having an attractive, thriving riverfront. But having one gives tourists and locals a chance to see the river and riverboats for what they are. St. Louis has gradually pinched off this opportunity.

There are safety considerations. We bring up safety because St. Louis harbor is notoriously difficult for commercial navigators. The Coast Guard, with good cause, has always been reluctant to approve proposals for poorly sited marinas that might result in hapless boaters entering the Father of Waters directly in front of barge tows.

Having said that, however, there is benefit to both commercial towing and the entire St. Louis metropolitan area in having a thriving riverfront where people can wile away leisure hours. It is perplexing why the city of St. Louis port officials have expressed little interest in such a project in the last three decades. When the Admiral was up and running in the early 1970s, thousands rode it daily. It was an attraction to tourists and, perhaps more importantly, it was an attraction that could draw area residents back time and again.

In recent decades we lost the McDonald’s restaurant boat, the Burger King boat, the Robt. E. Lee restaurant, the President, and others, including the old Goldenrod Showboat, home of the laughter-inducing melodrama.

The riverfront now boasts two small cruise boats operating under federal control, the Arch and the Admiral, an unseaworthy gambling casino that can go nowhere.

The goal to revive the riverfront should be to (1) attract tourists and (2) provide activity that will keep bringing local residents back time after time. The St. Louis Zoo has been successful at this for decades. And the Cardinals have proven that, if the activities they promote are enjoyable, local people will come back time and again.

As for the Arch, it attracts tourists, but those who have lived in the area for decades may be able to count on one hand the number of times they have returned to see it. If they do, they come with family or friends who have come to visit from afar. The Arch does attract school children who are on field trips. It is a high quality, educational attraction, of which St. Louis can be proud. But we doubt that it draws local residents back time and again.

There should be more to the riverfront than funneling visitors only to the Arch or directing them to a gambling casino or cruise boat. The Arch grounds should be more than just a walking path for the health-conscious who do their laps or take lunch-break walks daily. The riverfront could attract tourists and locals alike, and at the same time could accommodate commerce. Small business operators could benefit financially.

Consider a stroll down Bourbon Street in New Orleans. The smell of roasting chestnuts wafting on the breeze, hot dogs and bratwurst sizzling over the coals, popcorn snapping and popping as it bursts from kernel to puffy white balls, children with painted faces scampering to buy helium-filled balloons, storytellers entrancing old and young alike as they weave riverfront tales. Perhaps a beer garden, as some have suggested. There are dozens of small business operations that lend themselves to serving crowds and providing employment for young people who need work. It could be a summer-long festival. As for flooding, yes it occurs but not without adequate warning. Everything could be moved out of danger within hours. We are not suggesting water-type activities like pontoon boats, wave runners, canoes, etc., which could be dangerous in the fast-flowing river.

The commercial marine operators who make St. Louis their home would be well-advised to help financially to brighten up the riverfront and encourage attractions that could bring hundreds of thousands (perhaps eventually millions) to the city. People who see towboats and cruise boats, and people who understand what is taking place on the waterways, are less apt to line up to oppose every waterway expenditure we ask for.

Even though it is not likely to happen overnight, it is worth doing. St. Louis officials have been wracking their brains for ways to keep people in the city and to increase revenue. A thriving riverfront, with a wide variety of activities, would do much to bring area residents back downtown. The city, developers and the marine industry should equally support such an endeavor. Benefit to the latter might be indirect, but it would be worth it.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)