Editorial: Visions for St. Louis River Below Arch Raise Red Flag

One might assume that The Waterways Journal, a river publication based in St. Louis since 1887, would be elated because someone has a “vision” for the St. Louis riverfront, bleak as it is. But that would be a mistaken assumption.

We take it from the October 16 editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the publication endorses the vision of Diana Balmori to turn the riverfront beneath the Gateway Arch into a virtual pleasure park, including floating islands anchored in the current. Balmori is a 69-year-old Spanish-born landscape artist. According to the Post, she discussed her concepts before a “rapt overflow crowd” at the Visitors Center in Forest Park. Balmori, who teaches at Yale University, appeared at the behest of the Great Rivers Greenway District. She presented four concepts, and apparently the audience was awed by the wonders of it all.

The concepts vary widely, some of them more feasible than others, we suspect. We do not “thumbs down” the idea of riverfront development per se. We suggest only that it be sensible. We do certainly agree with the Post that the St. Louis riverfront could use some sprucing up. As to feasibility, the conclusion was that the price tag is “unknown,” the timeline “undetermined” and the funding “uncertain.” This is normal at this stage.

There are other critical issues that the Post should examine before lining up to support Balmori and her collaborators at HOK Planning Group. We suggest that locals not be swayed by artistic drawings and flashing laser pointers. The sight of millions of tons of ice or raging floodwaters crushing south past the Arch can produce quite different visions.

There are river cities where such ideas would not necessarily be bad. St. Louis is not one of them. The river simply is not wide enough. Proposals for St. Louis harbor development (especially marinas) have been repeatedly rejected for reasons of safety. While conjuring up these new proposals did Balmori and her collaborators ever sit at the top of the Arch steps and watch that crush of ice or flood water? Have they watched tows carrying 22,500 tons or more of cargo maneuver to navigate through the maze of bridges while avoiding collisions with each other? St. Louis is a major river port through which millions of tons of cargo pass annually. That will not change.

One of Balmori&@8217;s visions includes wide, sweeping ramps right down to the water&@8217;s edge. Another involves artificial islands anchored in the current. Some of the scaled-down ideas might actually be feasible. But to us, those islands and ramps only trigger visions of destruction. It was but a few years ago that the President Casino was struck by a tow and tragedy was narrowly averted. No protective cell had been installed above the casino.

Balmori and her associates should spend time with the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The former is in charge of issuing bridge permits. The Corps operates the Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Miss., where it constructs huge models of proposed projects to determine feasibility and assure safety. Both agencies are familiar with river hydraulics and perils. The Corps&@8217; St. Louis District is headquartered here.

We cannot ignore that if we stand halfway up the Arch steps during some floods, we can see water lapping at the bottom steps. Ankle-wrenching cobblestones, Leonor K. Sullivan Blvd., and even a few steps are totally submerged.

One must not assume either that we opt for commercial marine development on the Arch riverfront. It would be out of place there. There is adequate riverfront farther north and south of Arch where this could take place. After all, trains and trucks are no longer able to keep up with new demands for transportation. St. Louis would be a good site for a terminal to deal with container-on-barge deliveries, a relatively new development in water transportation.

But we are not trying to hammer home commercial marine development, though it is a good idea that would greatly benefit the city if done at the proper location. Our purpose is to convince those whose eyes have become glossed over by visions of a riverfront playground that they need to fly the caution flags and consider matters of safety. There are many well-established reasons why such development is not practical. Safety is paramount.

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.)