Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis has a new name, but that has quite a few folks scratching their heads over the change/NPS
What exactly is a "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial"? That apparently is one of the reasons there's a new "national park" in the National Park System, Gateway Arch National Park in St. Louis. But even that name is raising some eyebrows.
Does that name alone evoke images of the country's Western expansion, of the gateway St. Louis served for Lewis and Clark and other explorers and fur trappers who ventured into the Western landscape to see what was there and try to seek their fortune? Or does it make you wonder why a manmade stainless steel arch is being called a "national park"?
The new name has more than a few travelers scratching their heads.
"We set a goal as a family to visit all 59 national parks and visit about 4 a year," one reader wrote us. "Recently I did a Google search for the newest national park and the Jefferson Memorial came up. The new name is Gateway Arch National Park. Now, I am a novice at the national park names, but after our goal to see all 59, I’ve learned a few things and one is that it’s an 'official' national park when it’s in the name. But I also understand it must protect natural lands and this is man made.
"So, is the Jefferson Memorial what now is the Gateway Arch National Park, the 60th? Or is there something I’m missing?," he added.
Even National Park Service guides that explain the nomenclature attached to units of the National Park System -- national park, national monument, national recreation area, national historical park, national seashore, national lakeshore, etc. -- seem to suggest that simply renaming Jefferson National Expansion Memorial does not make it a "national park."
Generally, a national park contains a variety of resources and encompasses large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources.
Designated as a memorial back in 1935, this unit covers a bit more than 192 acres (91 acres federal, 101 non-federal) in St. Louis. According to the Park Service, "(V)isitors can ascend the 630-foot arch and see exhibits on American Indians, Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and others in the underground Museum of Westward Expansion. In the nearby Old Courthouse, enslaved Dred Scott sued for his freedom in 1846."
Not exactly a "national park" in the sense as Shenandoah, Great Smoky Mountains Acadia, Zion, or Yellowstone.
In announcing the name change the other day, the Park Service release said:
“Gateway Arch National Park helps visitors connect the Arch to the National Park Service,” says Mike Ward, Superintendent at the Gateway Arch National Park. “The mission of the park remains the same regardless of the park’s name. The stories of Thomas Jefferson and his vision of westward expansion are woven throughout the new Museum at the Gateway Arch, which celebrates its grand opening on July 3, while Dred Scott and his freedom suit are showcased at the Old Courthouse.”
Legislation to change the park’s name was introduced in the U.S. Senate last summer. It was passed by the U.S. Senate on Dec. 21, 2017, and by the U.S. House of Representatives on February 7, 2018. President Trump signed the bill into law on Feb. 22, 2018. The bipartisan legislation was sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Roy Blunt and Claire McCaskill, and in the House by Reps. William Lacy Clay, Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer.
“The name ‘Jefferson National Expansion Memorial’ was established long before the Gateway Arch was envisioned, and has simply never been adopted by our millions of visitors,” says Ward. “We hope this new name will best reflect the magnificent renovations and visitor experience we will unveil in a few months.”
Not everyone is embracing the name change. Comments that landed on the park's Facebook page included the following:
"Well, that's just dumb. Call it Gateway Arch if you want, but 'national park? As if this little city park shoved next to a freeway is on the same level as Yellowstone or Yosemite? Way to water down the brand. Does this make this little patch of pavement and grass the nation's 60th national park?" -- Clint Hadden
"So we celebrate an arch, but not the western expansion it represents? Still a cool place, but don't get the name change." -- Gary Walsworth
"The people of St Louis didn’t just sit around and suggest throwing up a big hunk of metal in the middle of the riverfront just for the literal impact of being shiny, they were building a monument to the city’s historical significance, which was based upon expansion into the Louisiana Territory. Calling the land Gateway Arch National Park turns that logic on its ear and says we’re primarily celebrating the big hunk of metal. Knowing the cynical people at work in the current government, both legislative and administrative, I wouldn’t be surprised if this does turn out to be a ploy to water down national park designations." -- Clinton Rice
"A national park for the Arch? I like the Arch as much as anybody. But, this is where Jefferson's westward expansion initiative started. What a stupid thing to do. Let's not educate people what this is all about. Let's change the name so it's easier for the ignorant." -- Dave Largent
"Sorry, this should not have happened. Before this there were three national parks less than 30,000 acres: Congaree at 26,000, Virgin Islands at 15,000, and Hot Springs at 5,500. Now we have one at 91 acres that was built in the 1960s. At this point Congress should pass a bill making all 417 National Park Service areas 'national parks' and get rid of the 20 plus other designations. Many are more deserving of that designation than the Arch." -- Jim David
"A manmade structure, no matter it's significance, does not deserve the name 'national park.' It reeks of a desperate grab for tourist dollars. The NPS should be better than this, especially at a time when budgets are stretched incredibly thin for the existing park units." -- Joshua Caleb Hengel
As we explained to the reader who contacted us on the name change, "there long have been efforts by local groups, usually concerned about tourism dollars, to convert national monuments, national historic sites, national recreation areas, etc, into “national parks.” Hands down, the reason is economic. Besides Gateway Arch 'National Park,' there’s long been an effort to turn Golden Gate NRA into a 'national park.' For years, in fact, it’s been referred to locally as “Golden Gate National Parks.”
Not too many years ago, Pinnacles National Monument was transformed into Pinnacles National Park.
There are efforts underway now to create an "Indiana Dunes National Park" and a "White Sands National Park" out of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and White Sands National Monument. There also has been talk about turning Colorado National Monument into, we suppose, Colorado National Park, and Cedar Breaks National Monument into “national park.” No doubt there are others.
That said, we do believe there are places in the National Park System where the “national park” brand is deserved, but not bestowed. Foremost is Dinosaur National Monument.
Thoughts, travelers?
Comments
I think I've come to an understanding of the reasons for the name change but that is too long a read to fit in a comment, so have a look at http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/gateway-arch-national-park-thoughts-on...
Agreed, with the current president's efforts to shrink & even abolish some national mounments in the NPS system, this move smells on many levels. Oh, by the way this is located in a red state. There are about a dozen national monuments and even Mount Rushmore national memorial more national park worthy than Gateway Arch. This is a degradation to the more scenic "real" national parks in our country. I know this was a unit in the NPS system but a national park?!? Really?!??!?
This is ridiculous. Prior to this designation the only "dumb" National Parks were Hot Springs and Cuayahoga, areas better protected as a National Monument and a National Forrest/NRA respectively. However, both of those parks do protect some ammount of natural habitat. Congaree and Pinnacles were mentioned by other people in the comments section, but both protect unique biomes, not otherwise represented in our network of National Parks. Our three cave National Parks felt awkward at first to me, but I'm over it. So, now we have three dumb National Parks, with one being significantly dumber than the other two.
Let me add to the list of more deserving, future National Parks. I am focusing mostly on regions that don't already have a crap ton of National Parks. Also, I wouldn't want all of them added because I think there's value in having a small, elite roster of National Parks.
El Yunque NF (PR), Okefenokee NWR (FL/GA), Padre Island NS (TX), Pictured Rocks NL (MI), a portion of Ozark NF (AR), a portion of Monongahela NF (WV), Thunder Basin NG (WY) and portions of any of Idaho's National Forrests.
My dream is to turn Cumberland Island National Seashore into a National Park in combination with some of the following:(Blackbeard Island NWR, Sapelo Island NWA, Altamaha WMA and the St Catherines Island Foundation). It would take a ton of money and political capitol, but this would be an absolute megapark and would be the only National Park protecting our Atlantic barier islands.
My wife and I just finished our 42nd national park (Great Basin).. I could not believe it when frineds toldl me last night about the ARCH. I agree that NP should not be manmade and have more to do to offer outside activities although we are getting too old for all the hiking at most places, but we still want to see them. Fortunately, we saw the ARCH some 30 years ago. Can I scratch that one off my list??
I agree that Gateway Arch's designation as a national park probably is politically motivated. However, unlike most of the opinions I read, I welcome the designation. It is a manmade structure and technically doesn't fit the official definition of a national park but it seems to be located at a turning point area in American history. I always wanted to visit it but now, even more so, I'll make a point to get there.
I'm planning a visit this year to Cuyahoga Valley NP. Why are there such negative comments about this park? If I understand correctly, this area was preserved as a national park to prevent it from again turning back to being a disastrous toxic wasteland. What's more symbolic than this reason to create a national park? I can't wait to go there!
I am an avid advocate for preservation of our open spaces. We are at the Arch as I write this. It should be a monument.
"The name change, however, also reflects two facts that have long bedeviled the arch and its role within the National Park Service. Saarinen’s soaring arc of steel is an icon of the automobile age, an attraction that has always been more about playing to the passing audience of the interstates than any particular relevance to the idea of national expansion. It also honors historical events that are now understood as deeply problematic within the larger trajectory of American history, including the dispossession of Native American land, cultural genocide, the extension of slavery, centuries of conflict and ill will with Mexico, environmental degradation and the emergence of a myth of American exceptionalism."
"The whole idea for a park and a monument to westward expansion was bizarre: Why in St. Louis, when other cities could also claim to be the Western gateway? And why an arch, which suggests the pioneers somehow passed through a giant croquet wicket? ...a symbol of triumph and conquest that is hollow at its core."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/50-years-later-st-l...
Let me first state that I love the parks and have visited many of them. I also believe EVERY state should have a National Park and hope we return to adding National Parks to protect and preserve beautiful and historical places. This designation, however, leaves me confused. If instead, Congress had named several (say the top 12 spots) locations of the Lewis and Clark expedition (including the Arch) as a new National Park called the "Lewis and Clark National Park" from several states (MO to WA/OR) then this makes perfect sense. If they had added land and built a museum to that expedition that might even help justify the National Park (Congressional) designation. Just changing a name and nothing else on such a small parcel of land with a man-made object doesn't seem to qualify. What's next then, one building in a big city being called a National Park in New York or Chicago?