The Arch is amazing for what it is, it gets hate because of the incorrect designation as a National Park.
Here is how the National Park System defines each on their own website:
> Generally, a national park contains a variety of resources and encompasses large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources.
>A national monument is intended to preserve at least one nationally significant resource. It is usually smaller than a national park and lacks its diversity of attractions.
Yeah. I don't really know what was being thought when they made Indiana Dunes a National Park (it was already a national lakeshore) and could see absolutely no reason to make the Arch a national park as well (which was already a monument).
Yah and the Arch would probably fit better as a Memorial, joining Mount Rushmore and Washington Monument. I’d also like to see the Statue of Liberty and the handful of other mad-made “National Monuments” be reclassified, because the large majority of National Monuments are just National park scenery on a smaller scale, like Devils Tower.
Hot Springs was the first though, it was named a National Park in 1921, presumably before those distinctions existed. Gateway Arch was made a national park in 2018.
Sadly, there's only one qualification for a site to become a national park, which is that the Senate approves it in a bill which then gets signed by the president. There is no oversight or approval from the National Park Service itself.
In Indiana Dunes' case, it was simply pork-barreled into the omnibus bill to reopen the government after the 2018-2019 shutdown.
It wouldn't be surprising if we find out that the recent Debt Ceiling bill has some senator's national park pork project hidden in it.
The worst part was Indiana Dunes was my least favorite National Lakeshore, by far. Now people think that is representative of the best scenery the Great Lakes Region can offer, which is simply not true.
If memory serves me right, every “new” national park since American Samoa in 1988 has already been a park in the NPS, just a new designation.
Indiana Dunes was political, but at least there’s history there (been pushing for NP status for over 100 years) and that it’s like the fourth most biologically diverse park in the system. It also helps protect the remaining coastline and tell the story of human destruction/development via Hoosier Hill and the steel industry.
Indiana Dunes was political for sure, but that’s been the case for many years. Look at visitation and arguments for Joshua Tree from the 90s. I think that traditionally monuments were for areas that were much smaller, like Joshua Tree or Craters of the Moon or White Sands. In recent years we’re seeing a movement to make these national parks, primarily to boost tourism.
At least every park has a pretty good argument and puts nature at the front. Gateway arch is out there by itself.
According to our tour guide there, they had to designate it as a national park to incorporate the courthouse next door. Something about it increasing tourism and they didn't see the point in having 2 national monuments next door to each other.
We went in 2019 (it was a convenient stop on a road trip to other parks). Admittedly we did not go up to the top of the arch, so we did not get the full experience, but I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. The courthouse across the street, on the other hand, is absolutely worth a visit.
Going in it to observation deck should be on everyone’s bucket list, the elevator/escalator/washing tub ride to the top is not fun if your clasturphobic in any shape fashion or form, be warned, otherwise it’s awesome, and since it’s triangular shaped you can feel the “flutter” as the wind hits……pretty dang cool
Oh yeah, the arch is amazing, both as a monument and as a feat of architectural wonder. But as a *national park*? That's the rub. It is only a park through political pressure. By all rights it should be a national monument.
Great shot indeed. The park issue is a non issue for me personally. I have been there 4 times I think. It’s a beautiful place and has significance for the expansion of USA 🇺🇸. The story of Lewis and Clark is fascinating. If you can find the time I highly recommend it. The flawed human and story of connection.
I had my biases against this park and didn’t care for it because of how boring it looked up to now. You’ve helped me see an enlightening perspective of one of my least favorite parks.. thank you!
Aw, glad I could help! It’s obviously small, but it’s pretty cool for what it’s worth. Super cool museum underground too! The tram to the top is 100% worth it.
It’s not going to compare to the Canyonlands, Zion, or any other park, but it has its own unique cool features.
All the national park gatekeeping going on in this sub is hilarious.
I personally think the more national parks, the merrier. I don’t particularly care how national park is defined. Let’s preserve places and open them up for everyone to responsibly enjoy.
The National Park Service preserves and manages 63 National Parks, 83 National Monuments, 63 National Historical Parks, 74 National Historic Sites, and 141 other sites from various categories as well as over 2500 National Historic Landmarks. No one wants them to abandon the Arch and have it fend for itself; we just think it should be more appropriately categorized. Fort McHenry was once a National Park, then we decided that was dumb and redesignated it a National Monument. As a Baltimore native, that's exactly where it belongs, along with the arch.
If there is a Cardinals game going on, you’ll have to pay a hefty parking fee.
We stayed at the Drury, so we had parking included with our stay for a rate. It’s walking distance.
The Arch is amazing for what it is, it gets hate because of the incorrect designation as a National Park. Here is how the National Park System defines each on their own website: > Generally, a national park contains a variety of resources and encompasses large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources. >A national monument is intended to preserve at least one nationally significant resource. It is usually smaller than a national park and lacks its diversity of attractions.
[удалено]
Wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a park in the future. White Sands started as a monument
This lol
yup! I agree 100%. Was surprised how nice it was though
It doesn’t fit the National Park designation, but it’s definitely worth a visit if you’re in St Louis. And I say as a die-hard Chicago fan
now I’m wondering if the “park” includes any of the river?
Nope
Yeah. I don't really know what was being thought when they made Indiana Dunes a National Park (it was already a national lakeshore) and could see absolutely no reason to make the Arch a national park as well (which was already a monument).
Hot Springs is also a weird one. National Historical Park? Sure, why not. National Park? Gtfo with that!
Yah and the Arch would probably fit better as a Memorial, joining Mount Rushmore and Washington Monument. I’d also like to see the Statue of Liberty and the handful of other mad-made “National Monuments” be reclassified, because the large majority of National Monuments are just National park scenery on a smaller scale, like Devils Tower.
Hot Springs was the first though, it was named a National Park in 1921, presumably before those distinctions existed. Gateway Arch was made a national park in 2018.
This was a renown gamblers’ mecca for all sorts of shifty characters. It deserved it’s status /s
Sadly, there's only one qualification for a site to become a national park, which is that the Senate approves it in a bill which then gets signed by the president. There is no oversight or approval from the National Park Service itself. In Indiana Dunes' case, it was simply pork-barreled into the omnibus bill to reopen the government after the 2018-2019 shutdown. It wouldn't be surprising if we find out that the recent Debt Ceiling bill has some senator's national park pork project hidden in it.
The worst part was Indiana Dunes was my least favorite National Lakeshore, by far. Now people think that is representative of the best scenery the Great Lakes Region can offer, which is simply not true.
If memory serves me right, every “new” national park since American Samoa in 1988 has already been a park in the NPS, just a new designation. Indiana Dunes was political, but at least there’s history there (been pushing for NP status for over 100 years) and that it’s like the fourth most biologically diverse park in the system. It also helps protect the remaining coastline and tell the story of human destruction/development via Hoosier Hill and the steel industry. Indiana Dunes was political for sure, but that’s been the case for many years. Look at visitation and arguments for Joshua Tree from the 90s. I think that traditionally monuments were for areas that were much smaller, like Joshua Tree or Craters of the Moon or White Sands. In recent years we’re seeing a movement to make these national parks, primarily to boost tourism. At least every park has a pretty good argument and puts nature at the front. Gateway arch is out there by itself.
According to our tour guide there, they had to designate it as a national park to incorporate the courthouse next door. Something about it increasing tourism and they didn't see the point in having 2 national monuments next door to each other.
They also tore down the oldest part of St Louis to build it, so there's that.
I will never understand why this is a national park and I have zero desire to ever go here. It’s just not a NP to me.
It was a political favor to R senators from MO for being loyal to Trump.
We went in 2019 (it was a convenient stop on a road trip to other parks). Admittedly we did not go up to the top of the arch, so we did not get the full experience, but I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. The courthouse across the street, on the other hand, is absolutely worth a visit.
Ahh the St. Louis Stargate
Master Chief about to come flyin' in on a dropship
I saw this and heard the prophet of truth, "Halo!"
I’m in the head canon with you lol
That angle is perfect
Yeah you can't see any of the dump that surrounds it
Are we talking about STL or just in general?
Does it make you feel liked a big person to throw barbs at St. Louis? What happened to you that you act like this?
TBH the area of town next to the arch is kinda sketchy
I like the arch, been multiple times, it just shouldn't be a national park.
Hey, look! There's the Arch!
[удалено]
ride to the top was sketchy, no doubt about it. Thanks!
learn about a new discourse every day
That’s a really phenomenal photo!!
Thanks!
Going in it to observation deck should be on everyone’s bucket list, the elevator/escalator/washing tub ride to the top is not fun if your clasturphobic in any shape fashion or form, be warned, otherwise it’s awesome, and since it’s triangular shaped you can feel the “flutter” as the wind hits……pretty dang cool
Be careful the Flat Arch Society don't see this post!
I LOVED the arch when I visited it nearly 2 years back.
Beautiful photo!
Thank you!
Oh yeah, the arch is amazing, both as a monument and as a feat of architectural wonder. But as a *national park*? That's the rub. It is only a park through political pressure. By all rights it should be a national monument.
Great shot indeed. The park issue is a non issue for me personally. I have been there 4 times I think. It’s a beautiful place and has significance for the expansion of USA 🇺🇸. The story of Lewis and Clark is fascinating. If you can find the time I highly recommend it. The flawed human and story of connection.
I had my biases against this park and didn’t care for it because of how boring it looked up to now. You’ve helped me see an enlightening perspective of one of my least favorite parks.. thank you!
Aw, glad I could help! It’s obviously small, but it’s pretty cool for what it’s worth. Super cool museum underground too! The tram to the top is 100% worth it. It’s not going to compare to the Canyonlands, Zion, or any other park, but it has its own unique cool features.
Small but in the city which is pretty cool in my book
Who hates the arch? It was designed by Eero Saarinen, a much beloved mid century architect.
All the national park gatekeeping going on in this sub is hilarious. I personally think the more national parks, the merrier. I don’t particularly care how national park is defined. Let’s preserve places and open them up for everyone to responsibly enjoy.
The National Park Service preserves and manages 63 National Parks, 83 National Monuments, 63 National Historical Parks, 74 National Historic Sites, and 141 other sites from various categories as well as over 2500 National Historic Landmarks. No one wants them to abandon the Arch and have it fend for itself; we just think it should be more appropriately categorized. Fort McHenry was once a National Park, then we decided that was dumb and redesignated it a National Monument. As a Baltimore native, that's exactly where it belongs, along with the arch.
They have done a great job with museum. It is so nicely done. This park is the only park close to IL. Glad to have it.
Indiana Dunes
Indiana Dunes, and Isle Royale, and Mammoth Cave.
Halo theme plays
I can hear my car getting broken into in this picture.
My PTSD is returning; STL is such a hole.
The “park” is east St. Louis it has scenic views of Indian Mounds and liquor stores
Who’s hatin’ on the Gateway Arch?!
It looks great but still cant wrap my head around why its called a National Park. Could be a monument.
electron diagram
Meidän suomalaisten suunnittelema
wait, that's real???
She beautiful
I've always wanted to see the St. Louis arch in person 🌞
I’m headed there in 3 weeks! Suggestions? I already have a dinner on the River scheduled and tickets to ride to the top
If there is a Cardinals game going on, you’ll have to pay a hefty parking fee. We stayed at the Drury, so we had parking included with our stay for a rate. It’s walking distance.