Why is the Gateway Arch a National Park?

[Podo944]

Hi there!

If ever in the area we would surely visit this cool landmark, but curious why it's a "National Park" rather than a "National Monument" or "Historic Historic Site".

Just curious, because I came across this article while looking for National Parks to visit. The Gateway Arch is the latest entry into the National Parks designation and rates last, because well, Yosemite?

https://morethanjustparks.com/national-parks-ranked/

Seems odd, and honestly not really fair to Missouri, because now the park will probably always come in dead last on lists.

I think it would be more fitting as a "National Historic Site" like Manzanar in Ca. Or Monument like Devil's Tower or Montezuma Castle.

The author is puzzled as am I. Anyone have any insights how this happened?

Thanks!

[moguldreamer]

Why is the Gateway Arch a National Park?


The question is sort of in the same bucket as "why does Hawaii have an Interstate Highway?"

[kyle19125]

I'm going to take a completely wild guess and say it's because a National Park designation preceded National Monument or National Historic site designations and changing the status is not worth the time/investment.

[Okey Dokie]

Everything you ever wanted to know

https://www.nps.gov/articles/nps-des...ant%20resource.

Although I don’t consider the Arch to really fit the criteria stated.

[Kathy884]

A lot of money was put into doing some renovations to this park and it really turned out great. I agree it's not Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier, etc. -- more like a nice nice city park, a cool monument, and a great little museum. IMHO it's well worth visiting if you are in the area.

This may have nothing to do with it, but I heard as National Parks just have gotten so much use and so crowded that the US wanted to give more places that designation. I'm guessing the upgrade to National Park was part of that and part too I'm guessing was sort of kudos for the nice improvements.

My son works there as a tour guide, and he's met quite a few people who had been to every national park in the country except this one, so were stopping in for a visit.

On a google search on the subject: "The Gateway Arch reflects St. Louis' role in the Westward Expansion of the United States during the nineteenth century. The park is a memorial to Thomas Jefferson's role in opening the West, to the pioneers who helped shape its history, and to Dred Scott who sued for his freedom in the Old Courthouse." T

[Podo944]

Originally Posted by Kathy884

A lot of money was put into doing some renovations to this park and it really turned out great. I agree it's not Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier, etc. -- more like a nice nice city park, a cool monument, and a great little museum. IMHO it's well worth visiting if you are in the area.

This may have nothing to do with it, but I heard as National Parks just have gotten so much use and so crowded that the US wanted to give more places that designation. I'm guessing the upgrade to National Park was part of that and part too I'm guessing was sort of kudos for the nice improvements.

My son works there as a tour guide, and he's met quite a few people who had been to every national park in the country except this one, so were stopping in for a visit.

On a google search on the subject: "The Gateway Arch reflects St. Louis' role in the Westward Expansion of the United States during the nineteenth century. The park is a memorial to Thomas Jefferson's role in opening the West, to the pioneers who helped shape its history, and to Dred Scott who sued for his freedom in the Old Courthouse." T

Thank you, this was very helpful.
And Indeed, my question was never meant to demean, as I know it's a very important historical landmark and I will absolutely visit one day!

[Parnassia]

The reasons why the founders pursued national park versus historic site or monument designation were probably procedural, fiscal, and of course, political. Designation is a lot more than a name. There are pros and cons to each criteria. Monuments, parks, historic sites and other national units get differing percentages of operational funding in different ways; some are negotiated during the Congressional budget process every fiscal year, some have line item funding that isn't subject to the same level of annual debate. Different units are also deemed eligible for different sorts of grants, matching funds, state level involvement, etc. Visitor service-related agency vs contractor/commercial uses permitted in one type of unit may not be permitted under another.

The original person or interest group that wanted a place to receive federal oversite may also "choose" monument over historic site, landmark, or park because of the speed at which the process can move and what entities get involved. For example: the President can designate a national monument by proclamation. Sort of the stroke of a pen. It doesn't need a Congressional majority. So, it can happen relatively quickly. If an area is under threat of destruction or some resource extraction industry is licking it's chops over the place, how fast the process to protect it can move may really matter. Maybe the political climate just happens to favor one process over another at the time. A particularly sympathetic or lame duck President hoping to go out in a blaze of glory might be a huge advantage if Congress wouldn't rubber stamp the idea. However, a future President can undo or reverse one proclamation by issuing another. A national park would be more robust in terms of legislation, but that requires time and debate, not to mention compliance with federal procedural laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act; (NEPA...the law that triggers environmental impact statements etc.). It is more difficult to undue a national park designation and more people get to weigh in on the action.

Each unit's designation includes an administrative/legislative history someone can read that lays out why it came into existence in the way it did.

Other reading about designations:

https://www.npca.org/resources/3202-...ional-monument

https://www.outsideonline.com/advent...nal-monuments/

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41816

[Podo944]

Originally Posted by Okey Dokie

Everything you ever wanted to know

https://www.nps.gov/articles/nps-des...ant%20resource.

Although I don’t consider the Arch to really fit the criteria stated.

Agreed. National Monument might have made more sense.

From the article I posted:

"Clocking in at 62 acres it is by far the smallest park and could fit into the next smallest park (Hot Springs) more than 88 times with room to spare."

[Podo944]

Originally Posted by Parnassia

The reasons why the founders pursued national park versus historic site or monument designation were probably procedural, fiscal, and of course, political. Designation is a lot more than a name. There are pros and cons to each criteria. Monuments, parks, historic sites and other national units get differing percentages of operational funding in different ways; some are negotiated during the Congressional budget process every fiscal year, some have line item funding that isn't subject to the same level of annual debate. Different units are also deemed eligible for different sorts of grants, matching funds, state level involvement, etc.

The original person or interest group that wanted a place to receive federal oversite may also "choose" monument over historic site, landmark, or park because of the speed at which the process can take and what entity would need to take it. For example: the President can designate a national monument by proclamation. Sort of the stroke of a pen. It doesn't need a Congressional majority. So, it can happen relatively quickly. However, a future President can undo that by issuing another proclamation. A national park would be more robust in terms of legislation, but that requires time and debate. It is more difficult to undue a national park designation and more people get to weigh in on the action.

Each unit's designation includes an administrative/legislative history someone can read that lays out why it came into existence in the way it did.

Other reading about designations:

https://www.npca.org/resources/3202-...ional-monument

https://www.outsideonline.com/advent...nal-monuments/

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41816

Thank you!

[Karl Lagos]

It seems like an oppressive symbol of evil colonization blah blah blah.