2007-10-28 11:16:46 · 11 answers · asked by Joey T 1 in Travel ➔ United States ➔ St. Louis
There were concerns from a lot of different people. The main one was this: St. Louis was not exactly a tourist attraction during the sixties. It was a city of industry that centered around the riverfront. Many of the buildings that lined the riverfront were factories. That was the impression people saw of St. Louis, a big muddy river lined with factories and warehouses. City developers wanted to build a monument that would memorialize St. Louis's role in the westward expansion. Thus the arch was designed. People did not want to change the landscape and were afraid that removing so many of the buildings on the riverfront would drive industry away. The developers were convinced that St. Louis needed a strong architectural statement that would atract tourism. The arch now stands to a monument of both westward expansion and St. Louis's entry into tourism. Although St. Louis is not a major tourist attraction, it certainly is a great place to visit. It really caters to visitors with lots of inexpensive family-oriented things to do. The arch just stands to show that some people can't see the forest through the trees.
2007-10-31 16:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by Jes 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was really expensive and they tore down something like 90 blocks of historic buildings to make the Arch grounds. Today, those buildings would be the oldest in the city. The Arch looks cool, but as a native St. Louisan, I would rather have those buildings right now, especially with the rejuvenation downtown is currently experiencing.
2007-10-30 07:14:36 · answer #2 · answered by stinky 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's 10 or 12 bucks to go up in the Arch, and there is also a museum there as well. Don't fret, it's worth every penny, especially on a clear day. The view will knock you socks off.
2016-05-25 22:48:46 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's my guess.
Without being able to see the finished work, it is hard for people to imagine. So thinking that a structure standing this high would be able to transport people to the top so they could look out windows. Some people thought it might not hole against storms due to it not having support in the middle.
Another reason is because it cost 13 million dollars to build. This is a huge amount of money now but just imagine how much it was back in 1963.
Also there was a nationwide competition on designing a monument. So no doubt people liked others more than the arch.
I would find it hard to believe if someone told me they were going to build something that looked like this and that it would be able to move with high winds.
The arch is amazing and is a great experience to go see and I found it a little scary being that high but it is worth the sights you see.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/history/us/monuments/stlouisarch/
~~~~~~~~~~~~
2007-10-29 04:54:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You see this all the time whenever a cityscape is going to change: people are afraid it'll mar the city forever. Parisians thought this about the Eiffel Tower... people are hesitant for huge, drastic changes like the Gateway Arch.
2007-10-28 11:20:22 · answer #5 · answered by a gal and her dog 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Joey:
I can't speak for everyone, only myself. In my opinion it was a waste of resources. It was expensive and in the real world it does very little aside from presenting an interesting appearance and high vantage point to overlook the city.
When you consider the fight that goes on over welfare money, veterans care, medicare, social security and other items I just don't see the Arch justifying its cost.
That's just my opinion and I am certain others will be at odds with it. Some people can justify spending tax money on sport stadiums but I don't fall into that group either.
2007-10-28 11:27:25 · answer #6 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Good question since it was opened on this day Oct 28 1965.
As with any major public project, some people did not like the design aspects and thought it looked like the end of a coat hanger sticking out of the ground.
2007-10-28 11:25:31 · answer #7 · answered by missourim43 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The temperature affects the length of parts to be joined.
If I remember correctly, the engineers had to wait until Spring before they could complete the joint between the two halves.
[The variation is approx. 1/16 inc per ft.(difference in cold and hot weather)] The exact amount would have to be determined on the type of steel and annual temperature charts by the site engineers.
2007-10-28 11:24:51 · answer #8 · answered by Steve M 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They probably thought it was bad because it could have fell down with the odd shape seeing that it doesn't go straight up.
2007-10-28 11:19:43 · answer #9 · answered by PC-User 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know but having been up it I think it is very good especially as we went up on the 4th July.
2007-10-28 11:23:06 · answer #10 · answered by TED T 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋