Architecture
Why a classical memorial better honors Eisenhower
This Monday, the anniversary of D-Day, the National Civic Art Society (NCAS) and the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art (ICA & A) announced the winners of the Eisenhower Memorial Counterproposal Competition. This competition was initiated after one of the most famous modern architects, Frank Gehry, had been selected to design a memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower in Washington, DC.
Winning counterproposal for the Eisenhower Mem.
While most of the architectural press praised this selection, Gehry's design had its detractors. The members of the NCAS and ICA&A, rather than being satisfied with mere complaints and criticism of Gehry's uninspiring design, initiated the counterproposal competition to find a suitable alternative.
The sponsors believed it to be a duty to give to Washington, DC, a more fitting place to remember to one of America's great heroes. More than any other work of architecture, a memorial becomes the setting, stage and scene for our most important civic events.
Indeed, the best and most beautiful, the most serene and the most magnificent, become the backdrop for the most sacred traditions and the most meaningful displays of civic duty.
Crowds gather for the "I Have a Dream" speech, 1963. U.S. Gov. photo.
It is in our best memorials that the loftiness of the architecture not only provides a fitting setting, but also serves to emphasize the greatest ideals to which we aspire as citizens.
The Eisenhower Memorial which Gehry has proposed, pictured below, emphasizes none of the ideals of one of our nation's great heroes, but reduces Eisenhower's accomplishment to the level of the mundane.
Gehry proposal. Looking southeast from Independence Ave SW.
Massive unadorned pillars serve not to inspire wonder, but rather to make one feel miniscule and inconsequential. Sheets of metal, strung up like drive-in movie screens between the enormous pillars communicate not the universal ideals of unity, sacrifice and freedom, but rather random moments picked from the President's life.
In contrast, designs chosen by the NCAS and the ICA&A and created by architects and artisans were chosen because they express through meaningful sculpture, beautiful composition and a deference to the city, as well as the civic virtues that Eisenhower himself exemplified.
The first place winner, Daniel Cook, stated that his winning design, pictured at the top of this post, was designed not as an arch celebrating the victory of a conqueror, but rather an arch of peace. The transition Cook reflects of Eisenhower as a general to Eisenhower as president and citizen evokes memories of Washington as Cincinnatus, the revered leader who laid aside his power and returned to his farm when his work was complete.
2nd place counterproposal.
Each design awarded was classical by design, but each was unique. Some chose to place Eisenhower high atop a pedestal, others placed him in a temple. In each we can see the limitless expressive capability of architecture when the designers cast off the limits of the modernist idiom. What all of the designs had in common was that they created a fitting place to honor and remember a man who exemplifies the best of what America has to offer.
Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of the President, in her remarks at the award ceremony stated that she could we could imagine this becoming a setting that every year future generations would gather to remember, as we did on Monday, the sacrifice of so many brave men on D-Day. That more than just a memorial to one man, that this place could become as the Lincoln Memorial has become, a sacred place to honor the civic virtue which we all aspire.
Below are the winners of the counterproposal competition:
1st Place
Design by Daniel Cook.
2nd Place
Design by Sylvester Bartos and Whitley Esteban.
3rd Place (a tie)
Design by Rob Fermin and Bruce Wolfe.
Design by Francisco Ruiz.
2 commendations
Design by Michael Franck and Rodney Cook.
Design by Scott Collison.
Erik Bootsma is a board member of the National Civic Art Society and of the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture and Art.  |
Comments
@ggwash
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
by Adam L on Jun 9, 2011 1:56 pm • link • report
no one ever notices that the former president warned us about this MI complex as he was leaving office. He had no problem with MI influence when he was IN office.
Why on earth do we need another monument to another president? I get washington, I get Lincoln, I accept Jefferson. FDR... IKE!?!?
Seriously, in 3010 are we going to start putting up monuments to former Speakers of the House?
by greent on Jun 9, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report
So, Eisenhower was a general, so obviously, it's time to break out the pattern books and build a triumphal arch? Or, frightening novelty, a triumphal arch flanked by colonnades?
This is a man who led a theatre in one of the most vicious wars the world had seen, and who served as president as the country found its way into an uneasy peace. Can we do anything that reflects some of that complexity?
Look, for instance, at the brooding Lincoln Memorial, a space engineered to spur reflection.
by David R. on Jun 9, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Jun 9, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jun 9, 2011 2:28 pm • link • report
If he didn't like Nazis so much, why did he steal the idea for the Interstate System from them?
by Matt Johnson on Jun 9, 2011 2:30 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 2:37 pm • link • report
by crispin on Jun 9, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report
by EJ on Jun 9, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report
No, of course not.
Lance said that Eisenhower would have objected to a classical memorial because the Nazis used classical architecture.
He then said that we should memorialize Eisenhower for his greatest achievement: the Interstate Highway System.
It has been documented that Eisenhower got his idea for the Interstate System from Germany's Autobahnen, built by the Nazis.
Since the Nazis didn't invent columns or arches, but they did invent freeways, and since Eisenhower saw fit to bring freeways home to the United States, it stands to reason that he wouldn't object to the use of columns and arches to memorialize his legacy.
by Matt Johnson on Jun 9, 2011 2:45 pm • link • report
"Oh, good. Just what Washington needs. Another massive neoclassical monument"
My sentiments, exactly.
For once, can we build something in this city that doesn't resemble a cemetary entrance or a tissue box?
Why does everything built in this town have to be a replica of what already exists?
by ceefer66 on Jun 9, 2011 2:48 pm • link • report
by CB on Jun 9, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 2:55 pm • link • report
But I really can't wait for the James K. Polk memorial and the Howard Taft Memorial ( I suggest that infamous bathtub full of opium). we can save money and build 1 monument to both Adams' and both Bush's, but Millard Fillmore needs his own reflecting pool.
by greent on Jun 9, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report
by Owen on Jun 9, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
"Each design awarded was classical by design, but each was unique. Some chose to place Eisenhower high atop a pedestal, others placed him in a temple. In each we can see the limitless expressive capability of architecture when the designers cast off the limits of the modernist idiom."
Limitless expressive capability? They all look the same!
And yes, the Gehry proposal is itself pretty bad. It seems to ignore the actual site and instead focuses too much on some "metal tapestry" surfaces that don't seem all that interesting.
The problem with the Gehry proposal is that it's bad design, not that it's not classical design.
by Gray on Jun 9, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
I'm sorry I offended you. Okay, I'm actually not sorry that I offended you.
Lance made a snide comment. He does that here. He disagrees that we should have a classical monument. But he doesn't say why it's a bad idea, except that the Nazis used columns, too. So they must be bad, especially for memorializing a man who fought the Nazis.
Which of course, doesn't make any sense. So I made a similar nonsensical statement to call out the nonsensicalness of Lance's statement. It's called satire.
But of course, jokes aren't funny if you have to explain them.
by Matt Johnson on Jun 9, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
by wd on Jun 9, 2011 3:02 pm • link • report
maybe its not very good satire if you have to explain it...?
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 3:05 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Jun 9, 2011 3:07 pm • link • report
The Holocaust is never funny. That's why I didn't use it in a joke.
Fact: The Nazis used classical architecture.
Fact: Washington has lots of classical architecture.
Fact: Eisenhower fought the Nazis.
Fact: The Nazis built the Autobahnen.
Fact: Eisenhower's exposure to the Autobahnen inspired the Interstate Highway System.
Therefore: Lance's argument is bogus.
Reading anything else into my comment is unwarranted and unnecessary.
For the record:
Holocaust: Bad.
Nazis: Bad.
Eisenhower: Good.
Classical architecture: Depends on the context.
Autobahnen: Depends on the context.
Interstates: Depends on the context.
Hope that clears things up.
by Matt Johnson on Jun 9, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 3:12 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 3:17 pm • link • report
Also, I think we just need to slow down with adding monuments to the mall. There should be a limit of like only one every 20 years or so. Space is rather limited and some other important stuff might eventually happen to this country.
by Doug on Jun 9, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report
by toorahj on Jun 9, 2011 3:23 pm • link • report
And, there's even a major Metrobus stop there for those wanting to use public transportation to get there!
http://skyline-square.com/category/seven-corners-shopping-mall/
:)
by rogerwilco on Jun 9, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report
But what we need is a William Henry Harrison memorial either in front of National Institutes of Health or the National Weather Service (or both).
by Kolohe on Jun 9, 2011 3:42 pm • link • report
http://www.bootsma-design.com/dropbox/eisenhower%20slideshow/gallery/album/large/images/grenfell.jpg
There are a few strong points to it. First, it has a lot of trees (many are flowering trees), so it can be enjoyed by pedestrians even in the midst of the insane summer heat. Second, the symbolism is very deep. You can't read what is written, but Athena is underneath in three porticoes representing Citizen, General, and President. There are stalactites in the porticoes to represent chaos. The styling and meaning of the Eisenhower sculpture and Athena sculptures is phenomenal. Under Citizen, Athena is holding a farm implement and it lists various titles under Citizen including University President, Farmer, etc. Under General, Athena is holding a spear and a laurel wreath, and various accomplishments are listed. Under President, Athena is holding the Constitution and a few accomplishments are listed. Water flows out from underneath Athena to the fountain. In addition, there is a lion paw on each of the divisions under Eisenhower (representing strength) and above the lion paws are acanthus leaves, symbolizing Western Civilization. The General portico faces northeast (to Europe), the President portico faces northwest (to the White House), and the Citizen portico faces south. I like how Eisenhower is styled in his long flowing trenchcoat, which provides movement and texture to the statue so that it can be admired from any angle. The wind moving the coat is supposed to represent the winds of time. It also differs from most of the depictions of Eisenhower we received where he is standing with his hands on his hips.
Many critics have said that Eisenhower does not deserve a monument, but I think that this is understated (particularly in the context of large trees), yet meaningful and can be a park enjoyed by those working in the surrounding governmental buildings. It also is something that will have lasting meaning and enjoyment for generations to come. In addition, it probably wouldn't cost $100 million to build!
by Eric W. on Jun 9, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report
"My favorite Eisenhower Memorial Competition design was actually not eligible to win as he is on the Board of NCAS, but it was a design by Milton Grenfell..."
by Eric W. on Jun 9, 2011 3:56 pm • link • report
www.classicist-washington.org
by Boots on Jun 9, 2011 3:59 pm • link • report
And when we set a limit on how often we add something new to the mall area, we also need to stop naming things (i.e. airports, federal buildings, aircraft carriers, etc) after people who are STILL ALIVE. At least wait until someone is dead before we start memorializing them. I'd actually prefer about a 30-year waiting period so we have time for mature reflection on someone's real legacy before we start deifying them with marble.
by Nick on Jun 9, 2011 4:01 pm • link • report
I don't remember hearing of any US bombing of German autobahns during the war. And the National Defense Highways was just an excuse to add a federal purpose to the interstate highway system --when Robert Taft was around, the interstate commerce clause might not be enough.
by charlie on Jun 9, 2011 4:07 pm • link • report
I really like the idea of using a map of the Interstate system. My favorite memorials all invite people to interact with the space, which is really what a memorial is about (FDR, Lincoln, Vietnam, Korea). It's also why so many people love the WWII memorial, although from a design perspective many dislike it. It doesn't matter what style the architecture is, the question is whether the memorial successfully brings people in and enables them to contemplate the event and/or person being memorialized.
by Esmeralda on Jun 9, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report
I see the last one of these was built in 1917...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphal_arch
/bangs his head against the table again...
by Jasper on Jun 9, 2011 4:15 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 4:19 pm • link • report
We have lots of squares and circles in DC named for various generals, admirals, and whatnot. If we looked at this as a design for 'Eisenhower Square' instead of an 'Eisenhower Memorial,' I think that might change how people view the project.
by Alex B. on Jun 9, 2011 4:22 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Jun 9, 2011 4:33 pm • link • report
Don't know if the Allies bombed autobahns during the war (they *probably* did) but the Germans definitely demolished sections of it as they retreated.
p. 57:
http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-pamphlets/ep870-1-69/NothingButPraise_history.pdf
by djdc on Jun 9, 2011 4:34 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 4:46 pm • link • report
No, that's not what I said. I said they used classical architecture to build Third Reich monuments. Anyone who's ever watched a documentary about Nazi Germany knows how integral to their whole movement the building of these classical monuments were ... They were the start of th 1,000 year Reich which the Nazis aspired to begin ... a new beginning if you will. Next time before you go off spouting about snide remarks, you might want to be sure you understand the remark first. And incidentally, while you are correct that the Nazis invented the modern limited access highway ... and they also 'invented' modern rocketery and nuclear technology, there is a vast difference between Eisenhower having helped adapt this technology for our use in the West and someone in the 21st century wanting to adapt the very types of symbols which Eisenhower helped discredit to now supposedly honor him ...
But I guess if you don't understand difference between symbols and architecture, I could see why you'd not understand the point. And btw the monument really isn't at all about architecture ... its all about being a symbol.
by Lance on Jun 9, 2011 4:57 pm • link • report
People used classical architecture to build a lot of non-Nazi monuments, too.
by Alex B. on Jun 9, 2011 5:02 pm • link • report
by M.V. Jantzen on Jun 9, 2011 5:07 pm • link • report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_architecture
by Lance on Jun 9, 2011 5:09 pm • link • report
According the very article you linked several have been built since 1917. Mussolini built a nice one in Italy in 1931 and one was also built by Eternal President of the Republic of North Korea Generalissimo Kim Il Sung to honor himself in 1982.
by Doug on Jun 9, 2011 5:38 pm • link • report
by GrumbleGrumble on Jun 9, 2011 5:59 pm • link • report
I do feel better now that I know the Gehry design includes drive in screens. I thought they were billboards.
by Stanton Park on Jun 9, 2011 6:01 pm • link • report
by Hmm on Jun 9, 2011 6:04 pm • link • report
but I like Grumbles suggestion. However, I think this thing is getting built.
by Tina on Jun 9, 2011 6:20 pm • link • report
I don't necessarily disagree with you about 'reclaiming it' ... (and btw I love classical architecture and think that is what makes our Federal Triangle and Penn Ave so special) ... It's just that think it would make a bigger statement about ourselves and our country if we had the memorial honor more for his post-War activities which helped bring America into the super power status and instituted the Pax Americana around the power ... and yes, drive us into the future with the establishment of the Interstate System ... with suburbia, and modernist architecture closely on its heals.
Let's leave it to Reagan to reclaim classical architecture when the time comes to build him a memorial near the Mall ... Oh wait! We already have! ... The International Trad Center ... which about a week before it opened suddenly got renamed the RONALD REAGAN BUILDING and International Trade Center. (Note the url on its website ... it ain't RRB):
http://www.itcdc.com/
by Lance on Jun 9, 2011 7:42 pm • link • report
I agree with Bossi that as nice a piece of cut stone as this might be, and as symbolically apt a triumphal arch might be, not being on an axis of any sorts is kind of a mistake. Come to think about it, given what an everyday kind of man he seems to have been, maybe something a little less imperial might be better.
If you want to see the best triumpnal arch in the USA, check out Grand Army Plaza in Broolklyn. The proportions are better than the Washington Square arch and it's got some supper cool sculptures to boot.
In the end though, designing a nice public space seems the most important thing to do since we'll never get concensus about style, although it's refreshing to see we are moving beyond the inevitable abstract composition.
by Thayer-D on Jun 9, 2011 8:27 pm • link • report
We need more monuments to the Common Man in Washington ... Monuments to remind those in "power" who gave them that power, and why ...
by Josue on Jun 9, 2011 10:11 pm • link • report
Okay, so are you suggesting an arch to all our developers? ;)
by Lance on Jun 9, 2011 11:16 pm • link • report
Agreed, but in this particular case, I think that we should make an exception.
DC has a history of failing to latch onto current architectural trends, and then completely overcompensating in the other direction. We got the Supreme Court building in the 1930s, which was built long after its neoclassical architecture had incidentally fallen out of favor virtually everywhere except for Nazi Germany.
Shortly thereafter, WWII happened, and monumental construction in DC was halted. Once the war was over, we dived straight into brutalism, demolished all of Southwest, and built concrete waffle irons like they were going out of style (which they were).
So, in many ways, I feel that Ghery's monument is a similar overcompensation. He doesn't want it to resemble the old neoclassical architecture — I imagine that he finds the WWII memorial as creepy and unsettling as I do. He also certainly doesn't want to emulate the architecture of the buildings around the memorial. I got to see him pitch the memorial to the Senate, and he openly expressed the hope that the memorial's construction would encourage the GSA to tear down the Forrestal building and several others surrounding the square. The memorial would not strive to fit within the Southwest Federal Center, but would strive to encourage the neighborhood to rebuild itself around it.
Ick. Let's find a happy medium. I don't love Ghery's design, but I also don't love any of these proposals. I actually find the second 3rd-place proposal to be somewhat interesting -- it proposes to blend into the neighborhood, and sell off parts of the square, rather than necessarily be the focal point. I suspect that, out of those presented, this one would have the greatest chance of becoming an active civic space at all hours of the day.
If we're going modern, maybe we can give Bing Thom a call?
by andrew on Jun 9, 2011 11:43 pm • link • report
He was victorious, with some accolades, but those are besides the point here. But he was not a dictator like the emperors of the Roman emperor. He was elected, not self-appointed by self-invented divine intervention.
@ Doug: Mussolini built a nice one in Italy in 1931 and one was also built by Eternal President of the Republic of North Korea Generalissimo Kim Il Sung to honor himself in 1982.
Ah, ok. Well, that makes it ok then I guess. Let's make a memorial for one of the winners of WWII by following the ideas two of the biggest egos of the last century.
/hangs a massive headache from banging his head against the wall.
by Jasper on Jun 10, 2011 6:59 am • link • report
From what I understand, he would not have wanted a grandiose symbol of his life because for him it was about public service, not self service. Why mush a monument be so large? Why can't it be at a more human scale? As the slogan goes, "Everybody likes Ike". Doesn't that imply that he was approachable, even humble. Do any of the memorial represent that?
Also in a time of austerity, spending upwards or $100 million on this memorial seems out of place. http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/faq.htm Besides, we have named the largest road system in the world after him, just how big does a monument have to be?
by Randall M. on Jun 10, 2011 7:31 am • link • report
"My name is Eisenhower, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
by tom veil on Jun 10, 2011 11:37 am • link • report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Gate
I think arches look distinguished, but some of the previous commenters are spot-on that it needs to be about the square as a whole. It has to be an inviting landscape.
by Pablocito on Jun 10, 2011 1:08 pm • link • report
by Boots on Jun 10, 2011 1:25 pm • link • report
by Neil on Jun 10, 2011 4:55 pm • link • report
I don't see why an Eisenhower memorial is necessary in the first place. He wasn't a terrible president, but not every president can have a memorial, and the Mall is getting crowded. And if we have to have a memorial, a replica of the Arc de Triomphe ain't it. I agree with Neil, who says we should give Ike a statue and call it a day.
by Flora on Jun 13, 2011 11:59 am • link • report
Like it or not, there's likely to be an Ike Memorial at that spot. This contest was simply to show that there are alternatives to Gehry's design. If some of the entrants were inspired by the Arc d'Triomphe, what was Gehry inspired by? Drive-ins and bloody concrete piers on I-70? Feel free to do a side-by-side comparison of an image of the Arc d'Triomphe and the entrants that used an arch in their design and get back to me about how it's a "replica".
@ Jasper
As mentioned by other posters, there are a number of wonderful triumphal arches in the U.S. including the Grand Army Plaza, Millenium Gate, National Memorial Arch, Newport News Victory Arch, Pennsylvania State Memorial (though, less an arch and more 4 arches forming a temple), Rosedale WWI Arch, and of course - the Washington Square Arch.
@Lance
http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/CL_brussat12_02-12-09_JID8KFJ_v18.67c36e.html
http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001945.html
Have a read, it won't change your mind but they're interesting articles nonetheless about Hitler, fascism, and classicism. That said, the idea of an International Style monument to Ike, as you suggested, makes me want to vomit blood. However, it's a free country - feel free to hold your competition for an International Style memorial to Ike to counter Gehry - it certainly can't be any worse. I actually like quite a few International Style buildings, they can be quite wonderful in the proper place.
On the actual designs -
I think all of the designs proposed have a little something that work and a little something that don't.
The winning design could have addressed the axis toward the capitol and "framed" it (as stated in previous posts). Sure, easily rotated and completed. Or, if you approach from the capital you see a pleasant memorial, monument, and park to draw you in at an angle and realize you're at a memorial to one of our nation's greatest heroes. Let's face it, the walk beyond that part of DC toward L'enfant Plaza on the axis formed is unpleasant - it's a sea of background office buildings next to the highway and is 100% dead to visitors after about 6 pm. That said, perhaps that actually is a reason to a have something beautiful on axis framing the capitol and looking the other way as well - perhaps it could bring a change to the neighborhood? Regardless, the design is well rendered with appropriate ornament and imagery and the site looks to be inviting and pleasant.
Bartos & Esteban addresses the axis but the arch seems squat and possibly too simplified, though the Palladian motif is an interesting touch. The sweeping colonnade acts as somewhat a of terminus to the site if coming from the Capitol, which may be a good thing considering what's beyond, but the site from the other direction may not be as welcoming. The Maryland Ave axis is maintained, however, the "framing" effect of the capitol is lost with the statue of Ike taking center stage. Not sure that's a bad thing though. The rest of the site seems largely ignored unfortunately and may turn into what it is now - a grassy wasteland with a few chin-up bars.
Ruiz address the axis as well and proposes to redevelop the block, though in such a manner that it may overwhelm the intent of the monument. Also, not sure I agree with Ike in a temple. Though I like Ruiz's concepts, his grasp of classical architecture is weak or he really phoned this one in at the last minute.
The Fermin/Wolfe design sets Ike the General and Ike the President in separate half-round colonnades however, for some reason they felt the need to raise the colonnades on a pedestal rather than Ike which creates - of course - accessibility issues, which is addressed rather poorly in my opinion with a small ramp. Better to put Ike on the pedestal not the architecture. The colonnade screen between the two I'm a little confused by - are they trying to screen the DoE or create a link between the two platforms? I think a little better grasp of the designers of the classical vocabulary could have created a much better entry - that, and perhaps a bit of hand drawing rather than a print from Sketchup.
Collison's design is simple, elegant and reminiscent of the Chateau-Thierry American Monument to honor our fallen WWI soldiers (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Chateau-Thierry_American_Monument_rear_side.jpg), however it seems like he's trying to hide the DoE building behind it and that the plaza before it is an afterthought. He does, however, I suppose imply the Maryland Ave axis with his sidewalks and the open space would leave the vista to the Capitol open. The design has merit and beauty but would need to be reorganized on the site to work (like most of these).
The Franck/Cook design is also a rather simple and elegant approach. The design, once again, maintains the axis of Maryland Avenue and places Ike atop a monumental column of victory not unlike the Battle Monument @ West Point. However, if that scale is correct they might want to address the fact that it's about at least 75 feet taller than what's allowed by the Heights of Buildings Act of 1899. Another relatively easy fix as the column seems a bit too large and possibly out of scale anyway. There are a number of these columns throughout the U.S. and I can't think of one (done properly) that doesn't have something about it to admire. In fact there's even one right in front of the Eisenhower Building in DC.
Thanks,
HGH
by HGH on Jun 13, 2011 6:03 pm • link • report
If the classical tradition will emerge with life again, it needs to have a frank expression of robust classical principles while at the same time bringing a spark of life as the best classical monuments in Washington show us. We should be thinking of the hearty classicism of the Federal Triangle, the Lincoln Memorial and National Archives, the work of Lutyens and Stanford White... maybe even Joze Plecnik.
by Joe. W on Jun 20, 2011 10:34 am • link • report
I could imagine a very nice memorial in the restrained Modernistic or Deco style typical of government buildings of the 1940s and 1950s.
The real question for me, as a planner designer aware of the tendency of political institutions to push things through regardless of their merit, is: How can construction of the the present plan by Mr. Gehry be halted? Can we arrange to suddenly be short of funds until sanity returns to the GSA or whoever is pushing this plan?
by David Gaby on Apr 10, 2012 9:09 am • link • report
Add a Comment