Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Administrative History

In the years following the Gateway Arch's completion, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial staff members concentrated on two key areas: finishing the memorial according to Saarinen's plan and developing a comprehensive interpretive program. Efforts revolved around landscaping the grounds, opening the Museum of Westward Expansion, and integrating the memorial's interpretive programs into the surrounding community life. Money remained the key to continued development. The shortage of funds delayed the completion of the memorial's essential elements and disputes over priorities sometimes emerged. Being a part of the National Park System dictated that the memorial also be responsive to demands on the system as a whole. The evolution of environmental awareness in the 1970s partly determined the thrust of the memorial's interpretive program, as did the growing accent on the role of parks in urban areas.

St. Louis' congressional representatives worked before and after the dedication ceremonies to obtain more funds for the memorial. After the House-Senate Conference Committee failed in 1967 to appropriate any of the 1965 $6,000,000 authorization, the representatives and other project boosters cut their request to $2,900,000 and had a friendly hearing in March 1968 before Representative Julia Butler Hansen's appropriations subcommittee. Mayor Alfonso Cervantes and association member Morton May discussed plans with the subcommittee to use the city's 1967 $2,000,000 contribution to finish the project as well as using Federal summertime anti-poverty funds to landscape the grounds. [1]

National Park Service Director George Hartzog assured Mayor Cervantes that the St. Louis money would be counted as matching funds and not as a contribution if donated before the Federal Government appropriated its pledge of $6,000,000. The nation's war expenses once again put the squeeze on the domestic budget, but in May 1968 an Interior Department funds bill passed the House and Senate. Included in it was $150,000 to be used during 1969 by the National Park Service to plan the Museum of Westward Expansion. As a result of this action and Director Hartzog's assurances, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen passed an ordinance in December 1968 authorizing $1,015,000 in bonds to continue the memorial's underground work. [2]

The shortage of Federal funds not only affected the memorial's construction, but its operation as well. Congressional directives calling for nationwide personnel reductions caused problems for the National Park Service. The agency had orders to eliminate 292 permanent positions out of a total of 6,290. During the five previous years, however, visitation to parks rose 48 percent, but permanent employment only rose 13 percent. Congress additionally authorized 42 new areas and an expanded program of historic preservation. The Park Service attempt to solve the problem resulted in the reduction of some visitor services in their areas as opposed to lowering standards of service or protection for visitors and resources. [3]

The effect on Jefferson National Expansion Memorial was immediate; the Arch was closed for two days a week starting in October 1968. The Bi-State Development Agency accused the National Park Service of making a unilateral decision in closing the Arch. This constituted a "serious breech of cooperative agreement," because repayment of Bi-State's revenue bonds was based upon a seven-day a week operation. Appeals to their congressional representatives brought no relief, however, and the memorial remained closed two days a week until May 1969. Despite the closing, the transportation system remained ahead of its operating budget for the year. [4]

The outlook for acquiring more funds appeared bleak: President Johnson's budget included no money for the completion of the memorial. [5] Throughout 1969 the memorial remained a secondary priority even in the National Park Service. Their relatively small construction budget had to be stretched nationwide, and the memorial was not at the top of the list. Nevertheless, the project's supporters kept up pressure for more funds. When Representative Julia B. Hansen toured the site in June 1969 Director George Hartzog escorted her. She remarked that Federal funding for fiscal 1971 was contingent upon the completion of designs and plans for the Museum of Westward Expansion. Hartzog expected the contracts for designing and planning to be let in July. [6]

On August 8 the St. Louis Board of Aldermen voted to authorize the sale of $1,000,000 in general surplus bonds under the 1967 $2,000,000 matching funds bond issue for the memorial's use. A week later they adopted a resolution asking the Federal Government to meet its commitment. Representative Leonor Sullivan urged newly-elected President Richard M. Nixon to include the $6,000,000 congressional authorization in his budget to match the city's contribution. Sullivan also informed Nixon that because Federal funds had not been forthcoming, the trustees of the Albert P. Greensfelder Trust had withdrawn their offer of $750,000 for the museum's completion. [7]

The Arch remained mired in a sea of mud, since no funds were available for landscaping. Many St. Louisans considered the landscaping to be a substantial factor in the city's face lifting and resurgence. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch claimed that the city and its visitors were "victims of Washington procrastination." [8] Superintendent Leroy Brown defended his agency's actions by explaining that much work remained to be done before surface landscaping could begin. Underground utilities, a water distribution system, lighting, storm drainage, rough grading — all were mandatory before landscaping. He felt that priorities lay in the interior work in the underground area. The newspaper did not agree with him. In its opinion, the underground museum could be put off, with the landscaping and planting coming first. [9] This conflict over priorities continued throughout the rest of the decade and for the first half of the next.

Exhausted from his duties in successfully supervising the Arch construction, LeRoy Brown moved in the fall of 1968 from St. Louis to Omaha, Nebraska, to become the assistant regional director in charge of operations in the Midwest regional office. Dr. Harry W. Pfanz, who had been assistant superintendent at the memorial since August 1966, became the sixth superintendent in December 1968. [10]

Superintendent Pfanz's immediate attention in the new year was drawn to the riverfront, where mooring space had become a prime commodity. Existing attractions included a World War II minesweeper, three excursion vessels, a floating museum-restaurant, a heliport-marina, and a showboat, with several more proposals looming in the immediate future. A reconstructed three-deck sternwheeler restaurant, the Lt. Robert E. Lee, was an expected addition in August 1969, a reproduction of the Santa Maria would arrive in March, the Southwest Regional Port District proposed to place a World War II submarine directly east of the Arch on the Illinois side, and a possibility existed that the Delta Queen would come to St. Louis to moor permanently upon its scheduled retirement in late 1970. Yet another proposal called for a huge bo-tel (boat-hotel) complex to be placed on the levee immediately north of the Poplar Street Bridge. [11]

A cooperative agreement between the city and Federal Government regulated the quality of development on the riverfront. Signed in 1961 by Mayor Tucker and Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, the agreement's Article II (b) stated that the city of St. Louis agreed to maintain the riverfront in a manner that would not interfere with the memorial's purpose and objectives. The city also agreed to consult with the secretary of the interior before granting any use of the street or levee for other than street and railroad purposes. Further, no permanent structures could be built or placed on the levee without the joint agreement of the city and the secretary. [12] Superintendent Pfanz used these criteria to judge whether the proposed attractions would be given permits to moor on the riverfront. He recommended to Mayor Cervantes that permission to moor the bo-tel be denied because its design was not compatible with the riverfront's historic character. Further, it would complicate traffic and parking problems in front of the memorial. The city agreed and the project died. [13]

The controversy over the Santa Maria, a reproduction of Christopher Columbus' flagship, was not as easily solved. Its backers sought a permit from the city to moor the ship east of the Arch on the riverfront, a proposal that conflicted with National Park Service policy. To keep the area aesthetically pleasing, the Park Service decreed that no commercial interest or boat could be anchored within 100 feet of lines running east to the riverbank from both legs of the Arch. This established an 830-foot long open space along the river. Since the Santa Maria enjoyed the support of many city officials (including the mayor), a meeting was held in the mayor's office in an attempt to solve the impasse. City officials, the ship owners, and the National Park Service finally agreed to moor the vessel the required 100 feet south of the south leg of the Arch. The National Park Service policy stood, and continued to influence peripheral development. [14]

The memorial's boundaries underwent a redefinition in September 1969, when Secretary of the Interior Walter Hickel established new boundaries to conform to the memorial's actual dimensions. Since 1935, the Park Service used a boundary description included in a letter to President Roosevelt from Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes. When acquisition occurred the Federal Government bought property outside the boundaries described in Ickes' letter. The new boundaries were necessary to assure that the Old Courthouse and some property along the riverfront were included in the site, as they were not recognized as such back in 1935. As a result of the change the memorial acquired a more perfect description on paper. [15]

Concern over the Old Courthouse did not end with assuring its legal inclusion within the memorial. As downtown St. Louis rebuilt itself, National Park Service officials worried that construction adjacent to the old building was inflicting damage. Ground displacement during pile driving at Broadway, Fourth and Market Streets produced vibrations that were felt by employees inside the Old Courthouse. This raised questions as to whether the vibrations negatively affected the building's dome structure. One hundred and twenty-one vibration observations were measured between September 26 and October 28, 1969, but the vibrations only registered .026 in/sec, well within the safe zone. [16] After 130 years the building still stood secure. As if to draw the city's attention to this fact, the National Park Service decided to install exterior lighting on the building in December 1969. [17]

East St. Louis Planning

During the last year of the memorial's most active decade, proposals concerning expanding the memorial to the east riverbank were still being considered. National Park Service Historian John Bond finished a comprehensive history of the East St. Louis, Illinois, waterfront in January 1969, and Superintendent Pfanz followed in LeRoy Brown's footsteps by meeting with representative groups from that city regarding development. Several problems immediately became apparent to Pfanz and other Park Service officials involved with these negotiations. Even though they met with supposed representative local civic government and business interests, the city's black populace was not represented. CORE members took the floor in one meeting protesting this fact, and National Park Service officials were concerned over the lack of input from the black community. Pfanz did not think the situation promising because there seemed to be no purpose other than the idea of improving East St. Louis; no direction, no cohesiveness, and no money. The city suffered from a variety of ills and it appeared that any Park Service project would primarily be one of beautification to complement the west side of the memorial. This type of development would most assuredly be questioned. Further, many of the representatives present at the meetings failed to comprehend the National Park Service's purpose or planning process. They viewed the east side proposal as a local promotion without regarding its national significance. Since 126 different studies had been done in the city without any tangible results Park Service officials believed they had neither the time nor funds to undertake a study unless they meant to carry it through. [18]

By May 1970 a Park Service study team completed a report on alternatives for developing the East St. Louis riverfront. Final recommendations would come from Washington after the report moved through administrative channels, but the agency made no commitments to East St. Louis. Any large scale development required relocating railroad facilities. In October the Park Service made public a preliminary report in draft form suggesting four alternatives for the east side: a state park, an extension of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, a national Urban Demonstration Park administered by the National Park Service, and a city park. The urban demonstration park proposal received immediate endorsement from local interests because no local or state money existed for the city or state park alternatives. The National Park Service would make no formal recommendation for the proposal unless it obtained popular support. The Regional Industrial Development Corporation believed the urban demonstration park proposal to hold the potential to stimulate the East St. Louis economy. Extending the memorial to the east side did not carry the same potential, since it involved developing only a narrow strip of land. [19]

History repeated itself on the riverfront. Further development depended upon local support, moving railroad tracks, and balancing the interests of the national and local governments. Once again local interests concentrated on immediate financial benefits and saw the development only in the light of sparking an economic rebirth. East St. Louisans hoped to emulate St. Louis' success story. St. Louis had waited more than thirty years for its initial investment to deliver benefits, however, and East St. Louisans would realize in the coming decade how complex their investment would have to be to make any sort of progress on their riverfront.

Further Construction Concerns

The new decade brought some promise that Congress would grant a limited amount of funds for the memorial's continued development. Even though St. Louis had just appropriated $1,015,000 of its $2,000,000 contribution, President Nixon's budget did not reflect its share of the three to one ratio. The 1971 Interior Department and Related Agencies Appropriation Act would give the memorial only $700,000. The National Park Service's priority for the year lay in completing more facilities inside the visitor center/museum complex, including an administrative area (locker rooms, restrooms, showers, storage, public sales area), a lobby extension, the north theater with projection equipment, sound system, screen, and seating, and electrical, heating, and air conditioning equipment by 1971. [20]

In an effort to improve the appearance of the memorial grounds, the National Wildlife Federation in December 1969 offered to solicit $400,000 of public funds for purchasing trees and shrubs. Instead of waiting for Federal appropriations, the federation would arrange for nurserymen to supply the trees and shrubs to the National Park Service at wholesale rates whenever the money was raised. Soon after this offer, the Park Service decided to use part of the city's contribution for planting trees on the grounds opposite the north and south legs of the Arch. Specifications called not only for tree planting, but grading, drainage of the grounds, seeding, and sodding. Four thousand trees of 22 varieties were to be planted, with half the ground grading being finished in 1970. [21]

The Park Service received five bids for the work, but rejected them in April 1970 when they far exceeded the Government's estimate of $345,600. The lowest bid submitted stood at $630,525. Park Service officials then proposed to reduce the work's scope by eliminating the planting items from the bid schedule and re-advertising for the grading and drainage immediately. A separate contract would be re-advertised later to allow for planting in the fall of 1970. The National Wildlife Federation's fund drive was delayed by the Park Service action in rejecting the bids, but the group wanted to launch their fundraising drive soon, retaining their goal. [22]

While waiting for the bid re-advertisement, Superintendent Pfanz dealt with opposition from local nurserymen who asserted that the Park Service's choices of trees would not survive St. Louis air pollution or the toxic riverfront dirt because of its heavy industrial use for 100 years. Pfanz thus had the contract specifications provide that the dirt not be filled with concrete or junk. [23] The principal tree to be planted was the tulip tree, and representatives of local nurserymen's associations, and state, city, and arboretum officials continued to insist that the tulip tree be replaced by other varieties. The National Park Service was thus caught in a sensitive position. If the tulip tree were used the Park Service would have to convincingly defend the tree because of public image and the fact that the work was financed by local money. Local attitudes would have an important affect on the success of the upcoming National Wildlife Federation campaign. [24]

The contract for the first phase of the landscaping went to Kozeny-Wagner, Incorporated of St. Louis in June 1970. City of St. Louis matching funds provided funds totaling $474,064. Work specified included grading, seeding, drainage, and other improvements. The concrete roof of the visitor center leaked; it was repaired and recovered with dirt and grass seed. Bids on planting trees were sought later in the summer. When they were, the contract would call for pin oaks to be planted along the walkways surrounding the Arch. The National Park Service changed its mind about the pin oak, however, after consulting with professional botanical sources. [25] The decision to proceed with the landscaping constituted a change in priorities. Superintendent LeRoy Brown had insisted that the money be spent on the Grand Staircase and museum to accommodate the growing number of visitors. After the city released its money for the landscaping, however, that work became the priority.

Even though construction priorities and plans remained flexible, National Park Service policy concerning the riverfront did not. For several years Captains Roy and William Streckfus requested that two 20 foot openings be left in the street retaining wall along the east side of the redeveloped levee opposite their commercial operation, the Admiral. This request, first made in 1962, allowed them to lay gang planks on the Wharf Street curb to take on and discharge passengers during periods of high water on the river. Park Service and city officials considered the request and decided they could not comply because the levee was a part of the memorial's overall development. The openings would not be compatible with Eero Saarinen's symmetrical designs. The Park Service made efforts to give Captain Roy Streckfus special consideration. Mooring rings were installed in the levee for his use. Also, in the late 1950s, development plans had eliminated Washington Avenue so that the memorial would extend to Eads Bridge, but largely through Captain Streckfus' efforts, the National Park Service changed its plans and kept the street in the memorial development. [26]

In 1968 Captain William Streckfus made the request for the openings again. Superintendent Brown believed that more access to the levee was needed as additional operations were authorized, but sharp disagreement with this view came from National Park Service Chief Staff Architect John Cabot. Eero Saarinen had intensively studied the levee's design, and its character affected the total memorial. Cabot believed that installing a breach in the levee wall on the north end would require a similar one on the south end since the design of the Mississippi riverfront elevation was one of strict symmetry, centering on the center of the Arch. Any breach would destroy the original design. Cabot believed that the levee adequately provided vehicular parking and that special pedestrian access was not needed. [27]

There was no change in this standoff situation until 1970, when a National Park Service staff member found that a ten-foot gap had been opened in the wall between Wharf Street and the levee opposite the north overlook. It seemed apparent that the gap was opened to provide access for the Admiral's customers during high water. Since the wall belonged to the city of St. Louis, Superintendent Pfanz could do nothing except inform the director of streets, who, in Pfanz's opinion, seemed concerned about the political ramifications of taking action against the Streckfus Steamers Company. Two and one-half weeks passed before Mayor Alfonso Cervantes was told of the breach, and even then, no action ensued. [28]

The St. Louis business community remained very interested in and involved with the memorial's planning, construction, and operations. In the five years since the Arch's completion, downtown St. Louis underwent a massive redevelopment. Estimates placed the total of new private and public development at more than $700 million. [29] The memorial's construction and development as a cultural and historical resource spurred community involvement and interest.

While planning continued on the Museum of Westward Expansion, the National Park Service initiated new services and exhibits in the Old Courthouse. Jefferson National Expansion Historical Association money paid for the installation of a Great Plains farming exhibit in the building in 1967. Two more exhibit rooms opened in 1971. One featured an exhibit of the memorial's development while the other, a nineteenth century spinning, weaving, and quilting room, featured volunteers in period costumes. Landmark legislation in 1970 allowed volunteers to complement the work of the National Park Service's paid staff. Volunteers could not replace full-time permanent, or seasonal and part-time park staff members, nor could they be used in maintenance; but they could serve as living history interpreters and guides. [30] The "Volunteers in Park" program effectively allowed the memorial to expand its interpretive services to the public.

The emphasis on environmental awareness and pollution control in the early 1970s led to the establishment of environmental education programs at the memorial. Staff members developed and presented four types of programs. The first was the National Environment Education Development Program (NEED), a curriculum-integrated program designed to help teachers make ecological principles a central core of their teaching. The curriculum was being used in National Park Service areas on a trial basis, because the materials were still in a developmental stage in 1970. Second was the Gateway National Environmental Study Area (NESA), a cooperative environmental education venture between specific National Park Service areas and local educational communities. In a third program, natural and cultural sites were used by day for school environmental education programs, with materials developed for each study area by local memorial personnel and school systems. Summer outdoor adventures provided inner city children with the chance to experience natural environments. The fourth program was General Aid to Environmental Education, which enabled the memorial staff to visit schools, assist with beautification projects, and provide workshops for teachers. During the summer of 1970 memorial staff members cooperated with the Missouri Botanical Garden in taking 1,450 inner city school children to the arboretum for environmental education. As if to underscore the memorial staff's attempts to bring environmental awareness to the St. Louis community, the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association sponsored a ceremony on June 24, 1970, to dedicate the Luther Ely Smith Memorial Square east of the Old Courthouse. [31]

Further development depended upon President Nixon's budget; he requested $770,000 to continue work on the memorial in 1972. This included $140,000 for planning, lighting, and site improvements, plus $630,000 for the continuance of rough grading that was already underway in 1971. The memorial received this money in a Department of the Interior appropriations act. [32] Along with the promise of more construction funds in 1971, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial received a new superintendent in January. Dr. Harry Pfanz moved to Washington, D.C., to head the Eastern Service Center's office of history and historic architecture, and Ivan Parker, a former St. Louisan, took over. [33]

The new superintendent continued the construction in 1971. Kozeny-Wagner Inc. received another contract on April 9, 1971, for $553,200.54 to complete the underground visitor center's north theater, an extension of the main lobby, north and south administrative areas, a concessionaire area, and fountain equipment alterations. The project was scheduled for completion in June 1972. The National Park Service's 1971 fiscal year construction appropriation and City of St. Louis matching funds provided the money. The Millstone Associates Construction Company of St. Louis reserved a contract on June 30, 1971, for $546,010 to provide 280 tree wells, north and south overlook walkways, concrete benches, lighting, irrigation work, and topsoil for the area. Trees purchased by the city's appropriated funds were scheduled to be planted in the spring of 1972 after the irrigation system and grading was accomplished. The city's plans effectively served to stall the National Wildlife Federation's "Trees for the Arch" program. Political considerations dictated that Superintendent Parker agree to the city reforestation program. In late January 1972 National Park Service officials planned with the federation to hold their program during the summer of 1972 after the city's program, but these plans never materialized. [34] The National Park Service, due to delays and conflicts, did not utilize the National Wildlife Federation's aid offer, like the Greensfelder Trust offer before it, in the memorial's planning.

Old Cathedral Controversy

Another conflict concerning the memorial grounds in 1971 strained the relationship between the National Park Service and the Old Cathedral church hierarchy. Bishop Joseph A. McNicholas, pastor of the Old Cathedral, requested that the cathedral's parking lot on the memorial grounds be expanded to solve the parking problems that occurred whenever special masses were held at the site. Superintendent Parker initiated a study of the lot to determine the feasibility of the request to extend the lot for 100 feet toward Poplar Street. He discussed the matter with the Washington, regional, and service center offices as well as the executive committee of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association. Their findings revealed that the major demand for the lot came on Sundays, Friday evenings and Saturday mornings, times which were off-demand periods for the surrounding commercial and private parking facilities. Nearly 400 spaces, requiring three and a half to four acres of memorial land, were needed in the cathedral lot to alleviate the problem, and Parker thought the proposition incompatible with the proper use of the land. Therefore, all the parties consulted believed the parking lot should not be extended. [35]

Bishop McNicholas approached Representative Leonor Sullivan in an attempt to change the National Park Service's decision. Sullivan thought the request reasonable, so LeRoy Brown, now director of the Park Service's Eastern Service Center, explained that if they approved the parking lot they would be constructing free parking to compete with the pay lots from which the memorial used income for capital improvements. Despite this explanation, Representative Sullivan wrote the association, asking the reason for their objection. Their answer was that they agreed unanimously that no request for parking on the site should be granted and had just passed a resolution stating so in November 1970. [36]

The association's executive committee agreed to meet with Bishop McNicholas in an attempt to solve the problem. If they did not succeed in finding a satisfactory solution, both Superintendent Parker and Director George Hartzog would recommend abolishing the existing Old Cathedral lot because of the availability of nearby parking and because of the traffic hazards involved. The executive committee and the bishop met on June 5, 1972. McNicholas' presentation detailed his reasons for requesting the parking lot's extension 150 feet south to provide an additional eighty spaces. The executive committee then voted eight to one to recommend to the National Park Service that the existing lot be enlarged. [37]

After this action, Superintendent Parker had his employees conduct an on-site study of the overcrowding situation. Results showed that overcrowding occurred only during one or two short periods, and that the lot remained free of congestion most of the time on Sunday mornings. He told Colonel I.A. Long, president of the association, that the land involved was part of a national memorial, and that the National Park Service had an obligation, not only to St. Louisans, but also to all people, to manage the land for the benefit of all. Environmental Protection Agency approval and possible public meetings would be necessary if the lot were extended. Therefore, to preserve the architectural and historical integrity of the memorial, Superintendent Parker disapproved any extension to the existing parking lot. [38]

Bishop McNicholas was stunned by the news. He believed that it was the executive committee's opposition he had to sway, only to have their decision overruled by the National Park Service. The "blatant threat" to close the lot entirely was a proviso for which it was beneath McNicholas' dignity to respond. He now had the executive committee's approval but not the National Park Service's to proceed. The situation remained unresolved. [39] Superintendent Parker requested that Regional Director J. Leonard Volz review the case and make an independent decision. Until the decision was made, Parker had his staff provide assistance in regulating unauthorized use of the lot by non-parishioners. Bishop McNicholas protested once again in March 1973, when the Park Service planted trees on the property south of the cathedral parking lot. Although this action enhanced the site's beauty, it was obvious to McNicholas that the trees' existence would later be used against any extension of the parking lot. Parker explained that the trees were donated and planted by St. Louis nurserymen without the Park Service's immediate supervision. Parker had his maintenance staff move the trees to where they would not be a factor in the final decision on the parking lot. [40]

Another potential change in the memorial's boundaries received increasingly greater attention in 1971. The preliminary study report on the East St. Louis, Illinois, riverfront moved through the various offices within the National Park Service for comment and consideration. Midwest Regional Director Volz recommended to Director Hartzog that the Park Service proceed with a further study based on the alternate plan calling for the 50-acre extension of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. He believed the concept should be enlarged so the 50 acres would be an integral part of other development within the total study area of 300 acres. The Park Service would have the primary development responsibility for the 50 acres with the remaining area to be jointly planned and developed by Federal, state, and local agencies. Volz stressed that any Park Service proposal should hinge on the remaining area's adequate planning and development. Additionally, any Park Service proposal could not proceed without the area's present facilities (railroads, grain elevator, etc.) being removed by other than National Park Service funding. If Director Hartzog concurred in the recommendation, Volz would schedule a detailed master plan-type study by the Western Service Center for the area. [41]

Representative Melvin Price (Illinois) then requested drafting a bill proposing an authorization for a 50-acre extension of the memorial. Because the National Park Service deputy director believed the proposal would receive sufficient support to justify the programming of a master plan study, he told Volz on April 23 to begin the work in anticipation of the need for legislative support data early in 1973. [42]

The Department of Transportation announced in September that $400,000 could be spent in determining whether the railroads along the East St. Louis riverfront could be relocated. Other projects besides the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial extension had been suggested for the site (including R. Buckminster Fuller's $500 million geodesic domed city), and all were dependent upon the railroads' removal. The site was selected for the study under the direction of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, which hired private consultants to conduct it. The Department of Transportation supplied $335,000 for the work, the Department of Housing and Urban Development $30,000, and state of Illinois, $35,000. [43]

Representative Price's bill (H.R. 8561) for enlarging the memorial came up before Representative Wayne Hays' Committee on House Administration in September. The assistant secretary of the interior requested, however, that action on the bill be deferred until the area received comprehensive study. Completion of the master plan was not expected until 1973, so National Park Service officials could not yet determine the potential or feasibility of adding the acreage. [44]

Two other factors in addition to Price's bill, the Department of Transportation study and the Park Service's in-depth analysis of the site, contributed to the attention on East St. Louis. Director Hartzog indicated that he supported the riverfront park idea in a St. Louis speech, and East St. Louis voted in a new mayor, James Williams, who wanted progress and not just "studies" for his city. [45] To back up his words, he offered to contribute $25,000 from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds available to East St. Louis to complete the master plan. Superintendent Parker indicated the National Park Service's willingness to accept the funds, and he prepared management objectives to provide guidance to any architectural/engineering firm to whom the Park Service would award the contract. [46]

The pressure was now on the National Park Service to accelerate the study's timetable. Both Representative Melvin Price and Illinois Senator Charles A. Percy questioned their request for deferment of Price's bill and the fiscal 1974 expected funding of the study. Both stressed moving ahead with the study. Percy believed that despite the increased local preparations, Federal interest and involvement was vital for real progress. Further, Percy believed that the "Establishment of the National Park Service area in East St. Louis would, from all indications, catalyze development along the riverfront and provide needed employment opportunities." [47]

Superintendent Parker made arrangements with Mayor Williams for the authorization of the $25,000 donation to be used for a development and conceptual plan. The analysis would consider what the interpretive program should contain, what developments would best complement the memorial, and what would be the most advantageous to the community and to the nation in terms of historical preservation and interpretation. The plan was vital for congressional review in consideration of the bill to extend the memorial. [48]

At the year's end the movement toward extending Jefferson National Expansion Memorial seemed to have gained enough impetus to push it toward a successful conclusion. New leadership in East St Louis and a contribution of funds, National Park Service commitment to contract an in-depth study, and Department of Transportation efforts to move the railroads, all promised to change the face of East St. Louis. But the studies would turn out to be mere paper; no progress would be made. Negative financial and political considerations in the next few years served to kill the project.

Museum Contract

The National Park Service met more success in its efforts to complete its interpretive message as manifested in the Museum of Westward Expansion. The Potomac Group of Washington, D.C. held the contract to design the museum, and the memorial's supporters met to examine the firm's design directive. Members of the Jefferson National Expansion Historical Association, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association, and the United States Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission (which had not met since 1967) met in St. Louis on June 2, 1971, with National Park Service Director George Hartzog, Jr., and Potomac Group's chief of design Aram Mardirosian, who made a presentation of his proposed design plan for the museum. [49] The story of the West, the land itself, and the different people who came to know it became the interpretive purpose of the Museum of Westward Expansion. Its overall objectives were: to meet the needs and interests of visitors of all ages and backgrounds; communicate the museum's purpose and enable the visitor to set his/her own course and pace in experiencing the museum; communicate both a sense of history and a sense of the randomness of events within the infinite spectrum of the overall story; and the introduction of relevant temporary exhibits. [50]

More specifically, the museum was to tell the story from the point of view of the different people involved in the acquisition and settlement of the West. Visitors would be able to identify directly with the people in the story by either being placed in the role of a particular person or by participating in a particular historic situation as a contemporary observer. Within each category of people involved in the West (Indians, Soldiers, Settlers, etc.), the various parts of the story were to be told from different points of view: groups (expeditions, tribes, troops), typical individuals (corporal, farmer, miner), and specific individuals (George A. Custer, Thomas Jefferson). Particular situations and historic events were described in the words of their participants or contemporaries. Contemporary photographs would be used, with the images of historic events and the people involved to be exhibited life size. A sense of time and place in history would be furnished by a chronological order in the deign and the relative order of material with respect to other exhibit subjects and material. The natural face of the land would be presented by the use of photographs, plants, and animals. Finally, the museum space would present a sense of order regarding the subject and exhibit material. Its design would provide a changing, essentially unlimited number of different views and experiences and would provide a broad range of opportunities for the visitor to view both the exhibit material and live performances in a relaxed manner. [51] Aram Mardirosian utilized most of the research prepared by the memorial's staff historians in the 1960s; their work provided the factual base around which Mardirosian developed his unique, indeed radical, museum design in 1972.

Additional funds were needed before the museum could be built, but National Park Service personnel proceeded with planning in anticipation of completing the memorial. The staff especially concentrated on continuing development in 1972 in commemoration of the National Park Service's 100th anniversary. Many special interpretive programs were planned and executed in honor of the centennial. Events ranged from St. Louis Symphony Orchestra concerts on the Arch grounds to the opening of a fur trade post exhibit room in the Old Courthouse. By 1972 fifty volunteers offered their time in the building's exhibit rooms. Profits from the historical association's gift shop sales paid for repainting the Old Courthouse first floor rooms and East Courtroom, and carpeting the Homestead and Louisiana Purchase rooms. Staff members established an environmental education room in the Old Courthouse for teacher workshops and school classes, and hosted NEED and NESA workshops. The Missouri Botanical Garden's Arboretum was designated as a National Environmental Education Landmark in October with the memorial staff's planning help. Almost 100,000 inner-city children participated in environmental education programs at the Arch, Babler Park, and the arboretum. [52]

Continued construction on the grounds in 1972 culminated in the completion of the north and south sidewalks, and landscaping along them. Eight hundred trees were planted by the Suburban Landscapers of St. Louis County along the walkways and the slopes leading to the riverfront. No oaks were planted, only black pine, redbud, and white and rose hill ash trees. Final landscaping plans were to be developed in 1973 through a contract awarded in 1972 to Harland Bartholomew and Associates for $78,430. The firm was to prepare comprehensive design plans, construction drawings, specifications, and cost estimates for completing site grading, sealing the decorative ponds, irrigation system, walk and walkways, paving the overlook, topsoil and seeding, and extending required utilities to service any future construction. [53]

The north theater in the visitor center opened on May 13, 1972, to show "Monument to the Dream" and "Time of the West." Its operation proved to be a successful addition to the memorial's interpretive programming. Superintendent Parker attempted to increase the memorial's interpretive services further by advocating reconstruction of the Manuel Lisa Warehouse (Old Rock House), the stones of which had been stored in the basement of the Old Courthouse since 1959. Association board members suggested rebuilding the structure for the nation's bicentennial in 1976, and Parker sent their request through Park Service channels for restoration funds. [54]

President Nixon's 1973 fiscal year budget provided $900,000 for the memorial, which was only slightly larger than the 1972 appropriation. After the 1973 Interior Department and Related Agencies Appropriation Act granted the money, there still remained $3,480,000 to be appropriated from the 1965 $6,000,000 authorization. The city of St. Louis still held $985,000 to be appropriated as soon as Federally appropriated funds reached the correct ratio. Superintendent Parker hoped to use any additional funds received over the $900,000 for the Museum of Westward Expansion. Representative Leonor Sullivan kept up the pressure for more funds by writing Representative Julia Butler Hansen, chairman of the Interior House Appropriations subcommittee, seeking an appropriation of $2,500,000 for the museum. Hansen sympathized and hoped that the amount would be included in the next appropriations schedule. [55]

Not only did the museum's completion depend upon future funding, but the East St. Louis, Illinois, proposal could not get off the ground without a financial commitment from the National Park Service. By January 1972, Superintendent Parker completed a management statement and planning management objectives for the East St. Louis extension. The Old Courthouse would serve as the extension's administrative headquarters. Visitor use of the area would be limited to picnic facilities and a visitor center, providing a presentation of river ecology and the history of human relationship to the river. Interpretation would consist of living history presentations and the use of the facilities for community cultural activities. The Park Service's Midwest regional director approved the plans. [56]

On May 24, 1972, East St. Louis city officials passed a resolution authorizing the city council to enter into a contract with the National Park Service to develop the plan upon which to base congressional legislation for the riverfront's development. The resolution also authorized the appropriation of $25,000 to pay for the consultant services. [57] As the summer passed, however, more problems developed which caused delay. The National Park Service's Denver Service Center worked to develop a scope of work acceptable to the outside architectural/engineering firm, R.W. Booker and Associates of St. Louis, which was to do the work. Only then could Superintendent Parker go to East St. Louis city officials for their approval and release of funds. By August, Mayor Williams asked Parker if he could hold up requesting the money for six weeks because the city was in a financial bind. Parker assured Williams that he could because of the need to finish negotiations on the scope of the work. Near the end of September the East St. Louis planning director wanted to know how much money the Park Service would provide for the master plan contract, because the city had several emergency projects for which they would use the $25,000. [58]

These developments effectively set back the master plan's completion date from 1973 to 1974. Even though Secretary of the Interior Rogers C.B. Morton visited the site in September 1972, the consulting firm was not scheduled to begin work on the plan for weeks. In January 1973, Representative Melvin Price introduced a bill into the House (H.R. 2379) authorizing the secretary of the interior to enlarge the memorial by not more than fifty acres in East St. Louis, Illinois. As R.W. Booker and Associates worked on the project during 1973, several problems arose concerning the size of the area to be considered and other minor matters. These were settled, but helped add to the delay in completion. [59]

In October 1973, Mayor Williams met with a representative from R.W. Booker and Associates, who presented him and other city and National Park Service officials with the results of his firm's planning studies. John Brancaglione displayed various plans and pictures of the proposed development. The central feature was an amphitheater that could be open or covered with a roof. The levee would provide a sculptured effect with fountains, pools, and lookouts to view the Arch. All facilities would be symmetrical on an east-west axis centered on the Arch. The riverbank would be sloped and covered with cobblestones, matching the west side. The entire extension area comprised sixty acres, and the use of portions of the land owned by private industry could be deferred until their facilities were moved. Mayor Williams was pleased with the proposal, and immediately instructed his subordinates to initiate zoning ordinance changes for the land. [60]

Museum v. Grounds Controversy

While all the planning continued, funding did not. President Nixon's budget for fiscal year 1974 contained no funds for work on the memorial. The chances for getting any money included in the Department of the Interior appropriation bill were slim despite the fact that work remained to be done on the visitor center, museum, landscaping, and pedestrian bridges. [61] In 1973, memorial employees were using the excavated cavern that was to house the museum as a parking lot. In an attempt to obtain funds for the museum, Superintendent Parker took members of the Ways and Means Committee of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen on a tour of the cavern. Parker hoped they would approve a bill authorizing the sale of the remaining $985,000 in city bonds. On June 8 the aldermen unanimously voted in favor of the bill, which made Parker believe that the money could be in National Park Service hands by September. He wanted to proceed with contract specifications and bid requests by September 1, and he made a commitment to the Ways and Means Committee that the National Park Service would do this. To have the museum finished by 1976, work would have to start soon. [62]

The director of the Denver Service Center objected to the aldermen's action in providing funds explicitly for the museum. If no firm commitment had yet been given to the city, then he considered the completion of landscape construction to be a more immediate objective. Parker disagreed. The city's $985,000 municipal bond issue could not singly complete construction of the museum, but Parker believed that when parking lot, historical association, and other funds were added to the city's money, enough would be available to finish the museum. Further, Representative Sullivan, the Board of Aldermen, and other civic leaders wished to have the museum completed by 1976. [63]

Superintendent Parker saw no way in which the National Park Service would spend the money on any other project than that approved by the aldermen. Irreparable damage to the memorial's relationship with the city would result. The aldermen would not even discuss applying the funds for anything other than the museum. Plans for the museum were complete; all that was needed were the bids, obtainable as soon as the funds were available in mid-October. Parker saw the only other alternative as giving the money back to the city, indicating a decision on Regional Director Volz's part that the funds should be spent on the grounds. Another factor was $500,000 in capital improvement funds from Bi-State Development Agency. Since payment of the bond issue exceeded the schedule by a year and a half, the fund had grown. Parker made an agreement with Bi-State's director that these funds could be used for the museum. In short, Parker kept the grounds green and planted the donated trees, but he wanted the museum. [64]

Unfortunately, the acting regional director supported the Denver Service Center's position that the grounds work should be finished before the museum. Parker asserted that he had proceeded with discussions with St. Louis Mayor John Poelker and the Board of Aldermen, had showed them the cavern, and had extensive media coverage of his actions because he was under the impression from past correspondence that the regional office and the service center concurred in constructing the museum if the city donated the $985,000. What seemed to Parker now as a shift in attitude on his superiors' part left him in an awkward position. The repercussions from such a reversal could be embarrassing for the National Park Service. He asked Regional Director Volz to reconsider. [65]

In actuality, the Denver Service Center staff had no objections to proceed with one project over the other. But they, along with Regional Director Volz, saw no logic in proceeding with the museum construction and having two incomplete projects existing simultaneously. Since large amounts of money other than Federal appropriations were involved, Volz wrote to both Mayor John Poelker and Representative Sullivan asking their preference. He explained to them that he had reviewed construction cost estimates and logical construction priorities and sequencing with Harland Bartholomew and Associates, who agreed with him in recommending that the site construction projects costing $1,563,000 proceed first. Volz anticipated having $1,626,000 in construction funds available for the work. The museum construction costs were estimated at $1,300,000, with exhibits estimated at another $1,300,000. Thus the museum construction costs, site development costs, and anticipated fund availability were about equal. Availability of funds for the exhibits remained uncertain. Volz asked for Poelker's and Sullivan's recommendations in light of these statistics. [66] Mayor Poelker based his reply on politics. The Board of Aldermen had recently passed an ordinance authorizing the sale of the bonds after the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee advised them that the money would be used for completing the Museum of Westward Expansion. The bonds were scheduled to be sold on September 18, 1973, and an appropriation ordinance would have to follow to make the funds available. Poelker stated simply, "I see little likelihood that the Board of Aldermen will pass the appropriation ordinance unless it is specified that the funds be used for the completion of the Museum of Westward Expansion." [67]

Both Regional Director Volz and Mayor Poelker held the same objectives regarding the memorial; both wanted it to be outstanding. The same problem had emerged again, one that had plagued the memorial in previous years, that of differing methods to achieve the same end. Volz's main concern remained priorities. He wanted to avoid having an empty museum structure for any length of time, preferring to construct the museum and its exhibits at the same time. Only a congressional appropriation could make this a reality. Volz believed the grounds should be finished to place the Arch in a proper beautiful setting, because the memorial staff already offered many interpretive services and activities to the public. Volz also had fifty other National Park Service areas in the region to consider for funding besides the memorial. [68]

Two weeks later, on September 20, 1973, Regional Director Volz informed Mayor Poelker that the National Park Service would proceed with the museum's construction, giving it priority over other memorial projects. Volz appreciated Poelker offering the advice that the Board of Aldermen probably would not pass the appropriation ordinance unless the funds were used for the museum. At the same time, Volz wanted Poelker to know the rationale by which the Park Service arrived at its priorities and to also realize that the Park Service was not acting arbitrarily. [69] On the next day, September 21, the United States Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission, meeting in St. Louis, adopted a resolution that Congress appropriate the remaining Federal authorization of $3,480,000, and that the National Park Service assign priority to the use of the funds for the museum's completion. Senator Clinton P. Anderson had retired the previous year; Representative Leonor Sullivan now chaired the Commission. [70] The resolution sufficiently illustrated Sullivan's views on the priority question. The National Park Service heard the message; all available funds would go toward museum construction. [71]

Although the museum versus grounds controversy ascertained the memorial's immediate priority, planning still continued for long range development goals. Memorial staff members sent three different models of the proposed pedestrian overpasses to the Denver Service Center for study and approval. The Park Service also had plans to build Saarinen's monumental staircase from Wharf Street up to the Arch. Here again Superintendent Parker was in conflict with the Denver Service Center. Parker believed that the sweeping, uneven tread design of the staircase as originally conceived by Saarinen was aesthetically correct insofar as compatibility with the Arch was concerned, but the construction cost would be substantially increased because of the extra form work involved. In Parker's view, a safety hazard existed to children and to senior citizens because of the varied stride needed to ascend or descend the stairs. Generally speaking the public would be unaware of the aesthetic reasons for the design and Parker believed the Park Service would invite criticism and tort claims if it built the uneven stairway. [72]

The Regional Office agreed with Parker and so informed the Denver Service Center. Its manager protested. Like Dulles Airport and the Sydney Opera House, the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial development was recognized as one of the great artistic achievements in architecture and engineering of the second half of the twentieth century. The entire development was the memorial's distinguishing character, not just the Arch itself. The Denver Service Center architects unflinchingly believed that Saarinen's concept should be executed as faithfully as possible. No unusual accidents or tort claims resulted from the similarly designed stairs leading to the overlooks, and Saarinen had tested the concept with a full scale mock-up. If the stairs were changed, Saarinen's great piece of art would be compromised, "and it is this art that is the prime physical resource of this unit of the National Park Service." [73] Superintendent Parker changed his mind after reading the Denver Service Center manager's comments, believing it would be in the Park Service's best interest to follow Saarinen's concept for the Grand Staircase. The acting regional director did not change his mind, however, as he believed the uniform stairs to be best from a management standpoint. [74] Thus, one of Eero Saarinen's key development elements was modified. His "monumental entrance" was cut in scale and built piecemeal over the next few years as funds became available.

A hope of more funding developed in December 1973, when the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration designated St. Louis as a Bicentennial City. Representative Sullivan hoped this designation would clear the way for requesting Federal funds for the museum. Secretary of the Interior Rogers C.B. Morton could not guarantee that this designation would insure full funding for the memorial in fiscal year 1975, however, because the National Park Service's Bicentennial program concentrated on historic areas of the Revolutionary War period. These areas held highest priorities for funding. Now that the decision was made to proceed on the museum, work could begin with the city's $985,000, the National Park Service's prior-year unobligated funds totaling $400,000, and $850,000 of other donated funds. Thus, the Park Service had a total of $2,235,000 available in fiscal year 1974 for the museum. [75]

Even though Superintendent Ivan Parker promoted the building of the museum, he did not stay at the memorial to see its completion. In February 1974, in the aftermath of a local incident, the Park Service offered him a new assignment in Washington, D.C., but Parker refused, resigned, and then retired. Assistant Superintendent LeRoy Brown, who had returned to the memorial in that capacity just the month before from a brief retirement, became the memorial's acting superintendent. [76]

Brown took steps to complete the memorial by letting contracts for grounds, exterior lighting, construction of a utility building, paving of the north and south overlooks, and the architectural construction of the Museum of Westward Expansion. Reconstruction of the Old Rock House and construction of the Grand Staircase remained in the plans, but no money existed for either project. Near the end of the year the overlook paving was completed, the outdoor lighting system installed, and construction progressed on the museum. Ninety-five percent of the floor slabs were laid, the wall lathes and studs erected, and some of the plumbing installed. [77]

Financed by the Federal Government and the city of East St. Louis, R.W. Booker and Associates continued work on the east side extension planning. The firm submitted its draft report to the Denver Service Center that reviewed it for technical adequacy during the summer of 1974. From there the report was forwarded to the Midwest regional director for review on whether or not it met the Park Service's management requirements. Some serious deficiencies in the report emerged quickly in the first step of the review process. Denver Service Center's Manager Glenn Hendrix pointed out to Representative Melvin Price that the study lacked justification for the expansion of National Park Service facilities, which met the Denver Service Center's management requirements. The city of East St. Louis planning staff reviewed the section of the plan concerning proposed land uses and redevelopment of those portions of the study area outside of the recommended National Park Service area; these were verbally approved as meeting the city's requirements. The proposals were also compatible with any future National Park Service developments in the expansion area. [78]

Glenn Hendrix's report to the Park Service regional director on R.W. Booker's efforts was negative. The Booker report simply did not justify the expansion. It was unconvincing and its proposal did not reflect the extensive resource data base that was gathered for it. Hendrix believed that more convincing documentation was needed if the National Park Service planned to recommend the expansion, let alone have it be approved in Interior Department, Office of Management and Budget, and congressional committee hearings. It remained difficult for a private firm to provide a planning document that the National Park Service could use to justify an addition or expansion to Congress. Hendrix recommended that a team of members from the service center, regional office, and the memorial be formed to prepare a final master plan and an environmental impact statement to submit before Congress. R.W. Booker's work and Denver Service Center recommendations would form the basis for the submittal. Extra estimated costs for the work totaled $44,500. [79]

On January 14, 1975, Representative Melvin Price tried once more to push the project by introducing a bill (H.R. 871) into the House of Representatives calling for the addition of not more than fifty acres to the memorial. Three days later the Midwest Region advisory committee to the National Park Service voted to oppose the memorial addition after hearing a status report on R.W. Booker's master plan. Although the National Park Service had yet to take an official position on the report, the advisory committee believed the area unsuitable for the expansion. The railroads would have to be relocated before the area could be added to the memorial. [80]

Despite the committee veto, Representative Melvin Price promised to continue supporting the project. East St. Louis Mayor James Williams believed the negative recommendation to be due to the committee's lack of awareness of the facts or a conspiratorial effort to deprive his city of the park. The committee objected to the plan's "urban renewal overtone," the need for railroad relocation before development, and East St. Louis' problems. Price thought of the recommendation as only a setback and Representative Leonor Sullivan promised to work with him to carry out the project. [81]

Even though the committee's report was negative, the National Park Service's Denver Service Center revised the Booker master plan and environmental impact statement to provide a viable document. By November 1975, however, Midwest Regional Director Merrill D. Beal recommended to the Park Service legislation division that Representative Price's bill be deferred until a more favorable time. Manpower and funding constraints in the National Park Service would make it difficult to extend the memorial, and final determination had to be made for removing and relocating the railroad tracks and facilities. Other than these exceptions, Regional Director Beal favorably recommended Price's bill to add the east side acres to the memorial. [82]

The proposal thus was effectively tabled. No extension could be made until the railroads were moved and the justification for extending the memorial made stronger. Developmental emphasis within the memorial could now concentrate on internal projects instead of expansion. Acting Superintendent LeRoy Brown retired, which enabled a new superintendent to supervise the museum's construction. Robert Chandler had three priorities to handle when he arrived in St. Louis: complete the museum, finish the landscaping and grading, and rehabilitate the Old Courthouse that was beginning to show its age. [83]

Chandler needed money for the museum exhibits and his superiors agreed. The item remained high in National Park Service priorities even though no money was granted in the 1976 Federal budget. House and Senate subcommittees had yet to determine whether any funds would be given and even if they were National Park Service officials believed that money allocated for the museum exhibits might be used in Washington, D.C., for bicentennial purposes. In March 1975 Park Service officials finally agreed to seek $1,176,000 in Federal funds for use in St. Louis and not in Washington, D.C.. Political pressure came from Missouri's Senators Stuart Symington and Thomas Eagleton and from Representative Sullivan to keep the money in their state. Park Service officials obliged their wishes. [84] By July 1975 the House of Representatives approved the $1,176,000 appropriation to complete the museum. After the Senate concurred, the $3 billion 1976 Interior Department and Related Agencies Appropriation Act provided not only money for the museum, but $1,605,000 for the memorial's operation. National Park Service officials expected the museum to be opened by June 1, 1976. [85]

Bids for construction of the first portion of the Grand Staircase were opened in May 1975; the National Park Service awarded the $555,889 contract to Kozeny-Wagner, Inc., in June. The contract specified the construction of the staircase in two parallel sections, with the center section to be built later when more funds were available. Electrical wiring was placed in the north part of the staircase to melt snow. Work also started on the Old Courthouse during the year, when the cornices and chimney stacks were repaired, sealed, and painted. All exterior doors and windows were refinished, repaired, and caulked. Inside the building a nineteenth century doctor/dentist office and pharmacy opened in January, offered to the Park Service by the St. Louis Medical Society. [86]

Underneath the Arch, the museum work progressed. Structural work was done under a $1,500,000 contract for the largest single-space museum up to that time in the National Park System. Contracts for a Thomas Jefferson statue, Lewis and Clark mural photography, and object acquisition all were in progress. The National Park Service did not yet have congressionally appropriated money in hand when considering contracts for a visual wall, three-dimensional miniature landscapes, music recordings, graphics and the hanging of photomurals; local staff members anxiously awaited the outcome of the battle between President Gerald Ford's administration and Congress over the diversion of National Park Service funds to complete the Washington, D.C., visitor center. The museum's completion was assured only after the struggle's outcome favored St. Louis. [87]

Two significant events occurred for the memorial in 1975 that signified the years of human effort to create Luther Ely Smith's dream. The 1973 Federal Advisory Committee Act terminated all committees established by act of Congress for which no termination date was specified. The United States Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission was such a committee and it was disbanded on January 5, 1975. Its last meeting had been on September 21, 1973. The commission's existence since 1934 served to insure that Jefferson's memorial would be nationally significant. Its prominent membership supported the project in its early years, giving credence to its ambitions. The Arch's construction served as the most prominent feature of the commission's accomplishments at the site. Secondly, in October 1975 the Arch celebrated its tenth anniversary. Ten years had passed since the Arch first began attracting visitors to its stainless steel walls. [88]

The Arch's impact on surrounding St. Louis was visibly apparent. More important was its impact on the nation. Its symbolism as a Gateway to the West, its architectural and engineering significance, and its overwhelming physical presence became known nation-wide. St. Louisans rediscovered their riverfront, while the rest of the nation rediscovered St. Louis. The history memorialized in the Arch came into national prominence as 1976 approached and the national community looked back to reflect on its past endeavors. The bicentennial observances around the country focused on past individual, community, and national accomplishments, and Jefferson National Expansion Memorial planned to commemorate them, most notably by completing the Grand Staircase and Museum of Westward Expansion.

President Ford's budget for the next fiscal year included no funds for the memorial. Nevertheless, the previous year's allocation was sufficient to complete the museum. By January 1976 all contracts for the preparation and installation of exhibits had been let. Congress moved during the summer to include extra funds for the memorial when the House approved spending $42,400,000 more than Ford's administration had asked for the parks. The Senate passed a similar bill. Included in the House measure was an authorization of $9,500,000 for the memorial, an amount later approved. The memorial's Federal spending ceiling was raised to $32,750,000 and an appropriation of $200,000 made in the 1977 Interior Department and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. [89]

More funds were needed to correct the Old Courthouse's many problems. Damage from water intrusion in and around the gutters threatened the interior rooms. Outside the rainwater crumbled mortar and bricks. Portions of the limestone cornices fell and the roof leaked. The external masonry surfaces required stripping the old paint, tuckpointing, and repainting. The estimated cost of the complete restoration was between $8,000,000 and $10,000,000. [90]

During 1976, improvements along Washington Avenue such as paving, bus parking, sidewalks, lights, and sitting areas were paid for by parking lot revenue funds. More contributed money paid for the installation of the St. Louis room in the Old Courthouse. This gift from the First National Bank in St. Louis opened in June and presented a photographic history of the city, its people, and the river. The memorial's historical association provided funds to improve the library and archival storage room. Saarinen's monumental staircase opened on June 24 at a ribbon-cutting ceremony. One-third of the stairs remained to be built pending further funds. [91]

As July 4 approached, numerous activities took place on and around the grounds. The Park Service provided space via special use permits for groups to hold bicentennial observances. Memorial staff members cooperated with area agencies to stage many activities, among them the Bicentennial Horizons of American Music and The Performing Arts (BHAM), which sponsored numerous music, dance, theater, film, and multi-media events. The St. Louis Symphony Orchestra presented concerts under the Arch to thousands of people. The Fourth of July Spectacular, sponsored by Famous-Barr department store and coordinated with Federal, state, and local officials, was held during the afternoon and early evening. It drew the largest crowd ever assembled in St. Louis. More than 800,000 people reviewed the boat racing, water-skiing (the river was closed to all commercial traffic for several hours), aviation events, stunt flying, parachuting, and a fifty-minute fireworks spectacle. [92]

Museum of Westward Expansion Opened

Along with the monumental staircase opening, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial's birthday present to the nation was the completion of the Museum of Westward Expansion. Many Park Service officials questioned the museum's unique concept, even after final official reviews and approvals. Superintendent Chandler had to defend the museum's design as late as July, one month before the opening. Security problems remained the main consideration because of Aram Mardirosian's unique, open design. Almost none of the museum's objects were placed under protective glass. Chandler believed the museum incorporated the same openness and free response as did the time and place it interpreted. He intended to maintain museum effectiveness and professionalism while insuring object safety by having park rangers on duty in the museum at all times. Artifacts were placed on the museum walls to reduce handling; many items were reproductions or replaceable originals displayed out of reach. Chandler sought ideas and alternatives within the approved design concept to increase security effectiveness as well as to utilize the museum's flexibility and potential. Despite Chandler's confidence that the idea would work, he had a nagging feeling that something would go wrong. If the National Park Service spent more than $3,000,000 on the museum only to have people walk off with the artifacts, the organization would look foolish. But Chandler took the risk because he did not want a static museum. He realized that many of his park's visitors came to see and ride up into the Arch, and he wanted to offer them a taste of history. He believed the museum would grow in importance. [93]

On opening day, August 10, 1976, the artifacts spoke for themselves with no labels and no glass barriers. The story of westward expansion was told through the words of the people who participated, and through historic photographs of them, their work and their surroundings. When the museum was dedicated on August 23 Secretary of the Interior Thomas Kleppe recognized the cooperative effort that went into it. The city of St. Louis, Bi-State Development Agency, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association, and the National Park Service all expended funds for the project. National Park Service Director Gary Everhardt, Regional Director Dave Beal, Mayor John Poelker, Superintendent Robert Chandler, and Representative Leonor Sullivan participated in the ceremonies dedicating the museum, then the largest in the National Park System. [94]

Aram Mardirosian received much acclaim for the museum design, but his involvement with National Park Service contracts came under scrutiny by the Department of Justice in 1976. When Mardirosian was awarded his first St. Louis contract in October 1970, he had recently left a position in the National Park Service. This raised conflict of interest questions and allegedly violated the one-year rule which stated that a Federal Government employee could not for a year be involved with duties if they were under his official responsibility within a year before his quitting Federal employment. Mardirosian asserted that his position as chief architectural advisor and architect-in-residence with the National Park Service did not interfere with any authority involving conflict of interest. The entire issue had been explored and resolved in 1970 before Mardirosian accepted the museum contract, but was revived in 1976. A year and a half later, in March 1978, Mardirosian was absolved of the conflict of interest charge. The Justice Department looked into the matter, decided not to prosecute, and so informed the Department of the Interior. [95]

The museum's opening helped spur an increase in visitation at the memorial along with bicentennial events. A record 3,458,000 visitors came to the memorial during 1976. Aram Mardirosian's design was indeed a manifestation of the National Park Service's desire to build a museum important and effective enough to complement the Gateway Arch. Now that the memorial had built its main interpretive feature, priorities turned once more to the landscaping and the Old Courthouse repairs. In the spring of 1977 the area's congressional delegation urged House appropriations committees to approve funds to expedite the memorial's completion. National Park Service budget requests only included $1,100,000 for site development, an amount which would fund only the initial steps of the needed grading and landscaping scheduled to take more than five years to complete. If more funds were available, the development could be finished in two years. The legislators sought the doubling of the 1978 budget request and the total $5,095,000 estimated for the work's completion, to be appropriated over the next two years. They also sought emergency funding totaling $406,000 for repairs to the Old Courthouse. Plaster was falling from the dome and the roof continued to leak. The delegation informed their colleagues that a recently completed historic structure report on the Old Courthouse showed that the building's total restoration would cost $9,000,000. This request required a separate authorization from the one the legislators sought. [96]

The House subcommittee responded in May to the request and recommended an increase of $1,273,000 over the budget request of $1,273,000. The subcommittee also recommended $1,874,000 for operating expenses and $406,000 for Old Courthouse emergency repairs. The House approved the bill. On the Senate side Senator Thomas Eagleton succeeded in tripling the original request in June. He got $4,288,000 added to Interior appropriations before the full Senate Appropriations Committee, which approved the bill on June 16, 1977. The bill passed the Senate and the Senate-House conference committee, and when passed by Congress, appropriated $4,452,000 for the memorial. [97]

The money was used for grading, additional walks, lighting, topsoil, seeding, irrigation, and the construction of two four-acre ponds. Saarinen's landscaping plans were finally being realized. Underneath the grounds in the visitor center Superintendent Chandler started several more construction projects. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units needed modification to accommodate the increased visitor capacity accompanying the museum's opening. Acoustical panels and an improved speaker system were also installed in the visitor center. [98]

By August 1977 Chandler accepted bids to repair the Old Courthouse's roof. A team of National Park Service historical architects and structural specialists investigated the Old Courthouse's exterior and structural conditions to determine the scope of the needed work. The building was structurally sound. No evidence was found of any serious deterioration because of the roof leaks, or foundation settlement because of earthquakes. Inside the dome, Museum Specialist Walter Nitkiewicz, who had restored the paintings during the 1950s, looked again at the Old Courthouse's murals. Their condition ranged from good to extremely bad. All of the Carl Wimar lunettes were extremely damaged. They had been crudely and completely overpainted in 1921 and too little of the original paint remained to make an effective restoration. Nitkiewicz believed that all the murals should not be transferred because of cost and durability; instead, they should be reproduced on new surfaces. The 1955 reproductions in the upper done were holding up well. [99]

Further Interpretive Development

The Old Courthouse's interpretive exhibit rooms needed attention as well as its dome and exterior. In 1977 the interim exhibits, designed to present the westward expansion story only until the main museum opened, either needed extensive rehabilitation or were obsolete. The National Park Service and the Jefferson National Expansion Historical Association planned a four-phase program to replace the Old Courthouse exhibits. Interpretive emphasis was to be placed on the Old Courthouse's history and architectural significance, St. Louis history, the courts' activities in the Old Courthouse, and the memorial as part of the National Park System. The exhibits were to avoid duplicating the contents of the Museum of Westward Expansion. National Park officials would choose an exhibit planning/design firm to produce a plan. [100]

Attempts to expand the memorial's interpretive efforts beyond the site and into the community resulted in the formation of a museum education program and the hiring of a museum education specialist in the spring of 1977. The program was aimed at creating a learning atmosphere for both school children and adult groups who came into the museum and Old Courthouse. Programs ranged from general museum tours to specialized presentations on St. Louis history and architecture. Films, slides, and walking tours were offered, in addition to a variety of learning slide packages, classes, workshops, and special programs. [101]

The memorial's interpretive division moved in a new direction over Labor Day 1977, when it sponsored a folklife festival on the grounds under the Arch. The Mississippi Valley Folk Festival featured American folk culture through American Indian, ethnic, Afro-American, and Anglo-American traditions utilizing music, dance, and crafts. The National Park Service cooperated in the venture with the Jefferson National Expansion Historical Association, Missouri Friends of the Folk Arts, National Council for the Traditional Arts, and the Missouri Arts Council. [102]

To guide the burgeoning memorial operation, its management staff prepared a "Statement for Management" to control the memorial's planning, development, and operations. The staff determined its management objectives by listing the influences on management, including legislative and administrative constraints, regional influences, and in-park influences. Some of the objectives affecting development in the next few years concerned the grounds development, the years-old visitor parking problem, and the growing interpretive program. The National Park Service wanted to complete the development so that the site's physical appearance and services reflected its purpose as a memorial to American westward expansion as planned by Eero Saarinen and approved by the United States Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission. Visitor parking was to be provided through an operating agreement with an appropriate agency. Interpretive programs were to enhance and enlarge the public's understanding and appreciation of westward expansion, early St. Louis history, and the significance of the Arch and Old Courthouse. The National Park Service considered it imperative to work closely with the Jefferson National Expansion Historical Association to provide educational services to visitors as part of the interpretive program. [103]

To complete the grounds work, Superintendent Chandler advertised for bids in March 1978 for the topsoil, seeding, irrigation, walks, and pond construction. Schuster Engineering, Inc., of Webster Groves, Missouri, was the low bidder for the work and received the contract. Following the firm's completion of the contract in 1979, Chandler hoped to receive funds for final landscaping, including planting thousands of trees, shrubs, and acres of ground cover. The 1979 fiscal year budget contained no funds for the project, however, and the only funding request the National Park Service made was $54,000 for continuing the Old Courthouse emergency restoration to prevent further interior deterioration. In addition to the landscaping, Chandler had two other projects with complete plans that could be started in fiscal year 1979, if the funds were available — the pedestrian overpasses and the reconstruction of Luther Ely Smith Square. [104]

Missouri's Senator Thomas Eagleton and Representative Richard Gephardt visited the memorial early in the year with House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill to discuss adding funds in fiscal year 1979 to equal the total remaining development, estimated at $6,497,000. Even if these funds were not appropriated, Chandler believed the time was right to start seeking another authorization increase. The existing ceiling of $32,750,000 would cover all development except the remaining Grand Staircase work, maintenance building construction, south theater construction, widening Washington Avenue, and restoring the Old Courthouse. When the 1976 authorization was requested the National Park Service decided not to include the funds needed for the Old Courthouse because architectural investigations were beginning and there was no accurate estimate of costs. Additionally, by adding this cost onto the authorization request the amount would seem extraordinarily high. As a result, the Old Courthouse work had to be completed with yearly appropriated funds. [105]

Congress failed to appropriate the total remaining development costs. On June 21 the House passed the Interior Department appropriations bill containing only $1,655,000 for landscaping the grounds. The Old Courthouse renovation funds were dropped in the House Appropriations Committee. Upon investigation, Congressman Gephardt discovered that part of the problem rested with the National Park Service because of poor program development. Gephardt hoped that Senate or supplemental appropriations might pass, but he was to be disappointed. The fiscal year 1979 memorial appropriation remained at $1,655,000. [106]

The National Park Service possessed developed plans for the staircase and pedestrian overpasses but no decision had yet been made on the parking lot. The city of St. Louis continued discussions with the Federal Government concerning replacing the existing lot at the site's north end with a three-level parking garage. During 1978 the planning firm of Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum, Inc., determined the parking garage's feasibility and gave its report to the National Park Service and the city in August. [107] The study involved a number of complex and interrelated issues surrounding the parking garage, including how many spaces could be developed, bus parking, and cost estimates. The firm offered three alternatives in terms of spaces available, estimated cost, and annual deficits within the criteria set up by the National Park Service and the city concerning height, architectural treatment, and other factors. Superintendent Chandler reviewed the parking garage report and was pleased with the proposed design. Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum incorporated the basic elements required, made good use of the space, and suggested a design compatible with the memorial. Funds remained the key to the construction; the Park Service and the city had to decide on a method of financing and percentages of funding. [108]

Two other aspects of the development ran into difficulties. The Grand Staircase, installed only two years previously, began crumbling even though Kozeny-Wagner had followed specifications in the contract. Memorial officials debated the source and solution of the problem for more than a year before awarding a contract to Schuster Engineering, Inc., to repair the staircase. The work began in the summer of 1980. Construction of the middle section of Saarinen's monumental Grand Staircase remained low on the memorial's list of priorities, however. [109]

Local sentiment still existed for rebuilding the Manuel Lisa warehouse (the Old Rock House), and Superintendent Chandler submitted the idea into the memorial's construction program. The regional director failed to approve the plan despite the local support, because the project did not meet National Park Service standards for reconstructing historic structures. Uncertainty existed over the authenticity of the remaining stones stored in the Old Courthouse's basement, and the structure could not be reconstructed on its original site because of the railroad tunnel location. Strict reconstruction standards dictated that the National Park Service not rebuild the Old Rock House. [110]

By the end of 1978 contracts were out for stripping and repairing the lantern, dome, and drum section of the Old Courthouse, followed by tuckpointing, sealing, and repainting. At the same time memorial and regional staff members examined twelve different proposals for the Old Courthouse exhibit development project and paid three firms to develop preliminary plans. Of these three, Aram Mardirosian's Potomac Group developed a design which best reflected the use of the Old Courthouse as a resource. The building was not a challenge to exhibitry or something to be worked around; instead, the Old Courthouse itself was the main exhibit, the essence of the memorial's interpretive story. The Potomac Group's design reflected the building's history. In 1979 Mardirosian revised the plan after another memorial staff review. Plans called for a final review acceptance by early summer, 1980, with construction beginning that fall. [111]

The quality and quantity of interpretive programs gained strength throughout 1978, with the Museum Education Program developing classes, workshops for teachers, a publications program, accredited intern and research programs with area colleges, and slide learning packages in addition to its museum tours and programs. During the year more than 2,000 groups totaling over 92,000 people utilized the Museum of Westward Expansion's resources. The Jefferson National Expansion Historical Association continued to fund these programs in addition to sponsoring the Frontier Folklife Festival (successor to the Mississippi Valley Folk Festival) with the Missouri Friends of the Folk Arts on the memorial grounds over Labor Day. [112] The memorial's services and programs developed nearer their potential for an urban audience. Spurred by National Park Service Director William J. Whalen's Urban Initiative program, the Park Service staff increased its outreach to its urban constituencies. The Urban Initiative's objectives were to establish National Park Service programs to meet the needs of urban populations, to provide programs enhancing the understanding of America's natural and cultural heritage, the need to preserve and protect resources, and to spread information about National Park Service activities within the urban community. [113]

In response to Whalen's program, the memorial staff developed several proposals that were approved on the regional level for implementation under the Urban Initiative. During 1979 the memorial sponsored pioneer and traditional skills classes which provided neighboring community preschool and grade school children with the opportunity to work with traditional arts and crafts. Sessions held on the memorial grounds included drawing, painting, pottery, basketry, rag-rug weaving, Indian crafts and games, and frontier cooking. The children compared themselves and their environment with the pioneer way of life through these traditional art forms. A secondary goal was to teach the various community center teachers and staff the techniques and skills to continue these art and museum skills after the Park Service program ended. [114] This program continued on a smaller scale in 1980. A second program initiated under Urban Initiative, titled the Visitor Access Transportation Program, provided bus service to senior citizens, people with disabilities, and other special audiences who otherwise would not be able to visit the memorial. These special groups preferred the bus service (provided by Bi-State Development Agency) because it overcame the parking and traffic problems involved with traveling to the memorial. From August until December 1979 the bus service provided transportation for 8,734 elderly and disabled visitors. [115]

Heading up the memorial's efforts in this direction was Jerry Schober, the site's new superintendent as of February 11, 1979. Robert Chandler left in December 1978 to take charge of the National Park Service's new Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area near Los Angeles, California. His accomplishments covered opening the Museum of Westward Expansion and beginning a reservation system for the transportation system ride to the top of the Arch, but Jerry Schober would have to finish the landscaping and Old Courthouse rehabilitation. [116]

Representative Richard Gephardt sought $1,464,000 in the spring of 1979 from the House appropriations subcommittee to restore the Old Courthouse exterior. Thirteen coats of paint applied during nearly 150 years were peeling off the building. Because President Jimmy Carter's next budget failed to seek any new construction money, Gephardt had an upward battle to obtain any funds at all. The budget for fiscal year 1980 contained a congressional appropriation of only $450,000 for the Old Courthouse. [117]

A near-disaster struck the Old Courthouse on June 14, 1979, when a fire broke out in the "lantern" portion of the building's dome. Started by smoldering wood after a lightning strike, the fire destroyed approximately one-fourth of the floor and shell. Fortunately there was no damage to the backside of the inner dome's plaster. Denver Service Center experts found no visible water damage in the paint or plaster in the weakest sections of the lower dome's upper portion. Tape placed over the cracks in the plaster the previous year when restoration investigations were conducted remained in place, holding the plaster together until more permanent repairs could be made. [118]

With repair work and investigations into the Old Courthouse's past physical appearance being conducted, the National Park Service moved to complete historic structure reports for the building's future management. The Old Courthouse as a cultural resource had to be managed on the basis of past administrative decisions and architectural investigations. Exterior restoration, courtroom furnishing plans, and interior exhibit development remained the memorial's highest priorities as the new decade began. Representative Gephardt sought $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1981 to complete the exterior work. [119]

Since the Old Rock House was no longer on the memorial's construction schedule and the middle section of the Grand Staircase was so low on the list of priorities that it would probably never be built, the main construction challenges facing Superintendent Schober and the memorial staff were the parking garage and the pedestrian passes over the depressed interstate and Memorial Drive. The City of St. Louis informed Schober in May 1980 that it intended to build the proposed parking garage on the north end of the memorial grounds at a cost of approximately $12,000. When the structure was built, parking spaces would increase from 320 to 1200. Consultant studies indicated that revenue derived from a parking garage of this size would not support the facility's operational and other costs. The city would have to sell $12,000 in revenue bonds to finance the construction, but since there was no Federal tax on the bonds, there also was no Federal guarantee behind them. The city and the National Park Service would have to find a way to provide a backup source of revenue. [120]

The Park Service began changing the attitude of years past that it did not want to build a parking lot or garage for the benefit of the local business commuters. With the increased emphasis on urban involvement and the realization that the local community deserved as much consideration in Park Service policy decisions as did the out-of-state and international visitors, the situation changed to where it would be in the memorial's and the surrounding community's best interest in terms of energy conservation for the garage to be built on-site. The unique situation existing in St. Louis, where the city had contributed one-fourth of the memorial's funds, also supported the fact that the city's needs should be considered in this type of a construction decision. [121]

Constructing the pedestrian overpasses posed a similar problem. Preliminary plans called for two overpasses to extend from the Arch grounds over the intersecting highways and into Luther Ely Smith Square. Their construction would require the redevelopment of the square and the estimated cost ran to several millions. Decisions had to be made as to whether or not building the overpasses was worth the expense and the destruction of the square as it stood. Perhaps another solution could be found, one not involving such a large redevelopment. [122]

Interest in adding acres on the east side to the memorial did not decrease after the 1975 Booker study was deemed insufficient. Instead, investigations into removing the railroads continued after they were identified as a key obstacle in the way of redevelopment. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) took the lead in determining relocation possibilities, which caused the National Park Service to keep the door open to increasing the memorial's size. By 1978 the FRA had completed phase I, the development of a physical plan, of the St. Louis Railroad Gateway Terminal Restructuring Project. Phase II of the project had no timetable since it included preliminary environmental impact assessments. The phase was still in an early stage of the work and the FRA could make no predictions as to when it would be completed. This gave the National Park Service additional time to review its east bank study because of the growing emphasis on urban parks and the possible railroad relocation. [123] National Park Service Director William Whalen considered the point irrelevant as to whether or not the National Park Service managed the East St. Louis site; his main concern was setting it aside in the public domain. Several problems were involved in planning and implementing a project of this size and complexity. As on the St. Louis side of the river, many interests were involved with the development. Railroads concerned about financing and competition, public concern centering on social, economic, and environmental impacts, and concern over costs contributed to the difficulty in designing a feasible plan. [124]

As the year 1980 began, various interests were still fighting for East St. Louis. On February 26, Illinois Representative Melvin Price introduced H.R. 6620, to authorize the secretary of the interior to enlarge Jefferson National Expansion Memorial by not more than 350 acres. Along with Price's legislative attempts to redevelop the site, other special projects were pursued to accomplish the same goal. The East St. Louis riverfront included more than 1,300 acres that could support a variety of compatible land uses. Development and profitable land use could occur around a central core of National Park Service property within the area. In addition to the potential for housing and recreational use, one proposal promised to foster the arts, humanities, and sciences in a cultural complex. The Institute for Humanistic Studies, which received much interest and support in the bi-state area, would provide educational enrichment programs not only on the local scale, but regionally, nationally, and internationally. [125]

National Park Service funds spent in urban parks served to reach a larger audience, which could not in any other way be touched by a Park Service program. Superintendent Robert Chandler believed that if the National Park Service was serious about urban initiative and providing recreation, then the memorial stood a good chance of developing the east side because of its location in the middle of 2,500,000 people. Superintendent Jerry Schober believed that despite the years of past efforts and studies to rebuild East St. Louis, greater potential existed in 1980 because of expiring railroad leases, the national emphasis on urban areas, and the local interest in the humanistic institute proposal. [126] Jefferson National Expansion Memorial would lend its support to community efforts to develop the East St. Louis riverbank; such a development would complement the memorial according to Eero Saarinen's initial concepts.

The story of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is one of people, beginning with Thomas Jefferson and thousands of nameless if not forgotten western settlers. Some of them paused only briefly in St. Louis, others forged their permanent homes here on the edge of the frontier. The descendants of those who stayed cherished their elders' heritage by preserving the Old Courthouse. They honored those who headed west by building the Gateway Arch.

The memorial did not begin or end with the construction of the Gateway Arch. Thirty years of work preceded it. The memorial as a whole affected St. Louis in ways greater than even Luther Ely Smith could have imagined. The city's national image benefited in terms of identification, visitation, and a sense of place in American history. The memorial's educational and cultural resources provided lasting imprints upon the local and national community. Because of its location in a metropolitan area, the memorial met the needs of the National Park Service to provide park experiences in the urban environment, even though it predated that emphasis.

The early local opposition to the memorial ceased and was forgotten. Questions remained, however, as to the razing of so many historically significant buildings and the heritage lost in the destruction of the Manuel Lisa warehouse. Portions of St. Louis' heritage were lost because of the emphasis on the site's national rather than local significance.

The memorial's influence spread far, from recreation to zoning to education to memorialization to economic rebirth. The Old Courthouse and the Gateway Arch of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial embodied several generations of American men and women: the generations which, through sheer fortitude and courage settled the West, and a generation which through its own mixture of genius and persistent effort managed to memorialize its forbears' achievements.