Comments on To save the Eisenhower Memorial, we may need to move it - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by David C

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:01:47 EDT

Ryan, next to my profile at the bottom of this post is a little graphic of a letter. You can click that to contact me if you'd like.

Comment by Ryan Holeywell

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:34:42 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by David C

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:56:00 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by Ryan Holeywell

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:11:18 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by David C

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:27:39 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by Ryan Holeywell

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:12:14 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by David C

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 23:54:46 EDT

In fact, even once a memorial has been built and sited in a city for 50+ years it still isn't too late to decide that it would be better placed in another city.

Comment by David C

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 23:45:50 EDT

Alex B,

Nope.

Comment by Alex B.

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:01:53 EDT

A bit late for that in the process, isn't it, David?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower_Memorial

Congress authorized the memorial in 1999. Congress authorized site selection in 2002:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ117/pdf/PLAW-107publ117.pdf

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may establish a permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower on land under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior in the District
of Columbia or its environs.
‘‘(2) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMORATIVE
WORKS.—The establishment of the memorial shall be in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001
et seq.).’’.

Comment by David C

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:50:39 EDT

I think when discussing where to put the memorial and why it is relevant to discuss where to put the memorial and why.

Why is putting it in the capital a central point/goal? Is that a good goal? Does that goal come at the expense of other goals that undermine the total value of the memorial? These are all good questions to ask, no?

So far you're saying that we have to put in the capital because the point is to put it in the capital. That's a bit circular.

And it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend that Gettysburg was suggested at random, when it clearly wasn't. Saying things that are false isn't respectful to anyone else here.

Comment by MLD

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:33:33 EDT

I think many would say one of the central points/goals of the Eisenhower Memorial is memorializing him in the capital. So in order to achieve that the memorial would have to be... in the capital. That's DC for those playing at home.

Seems to me that argument is kind of like saying "well we like this National WWII Memorial proposal and all but couldn't we just put it over in Honolulu? There's all that other WWII stuff there already so it will fit right in!" Wasn't the point of the memorial that people wanted it in the capital city?

Comment by David C

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:24:13 EDT

Right. Was Gettysburg chosen at random?

Comment by MLD

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:19:18 EDT

That was in response to the idea that we should put it in Gettysburg instead of DC.

Comment by David C

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:06:52 EDT

@MLD,

Who said "random"? And isn't this already a plan to put the statue wherever the hell we want? If we didn't decide to put it there, who did? God?

Comment by MLD

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:15:57 EDT

I'm pretty sure the point is to memorialize him in the nation's capital, not just put a statue wherever the hell we want. Because statues of him in random places already exist.

We don't need to move it - turning this plot into something other than an on-ramp is a good idea. The stakeholders here (NCPC, etc) need to get in a room and decide if they're going to go with this Gehry design or scrap it and find something else. But right now we're just getting hand-wringing every couple of months without actual decisions.

Comment by JW

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:36:00 EDT

Regarding Gettysburg as a location - the area is already host to the Eisenhower National Historic Site. I am not sure it makes sense to put the memorial there too.

I think that's why it does make sense. The Eisenhower site at Gettysburg doesn't really have much for casual tourists. By putting the memorial there you give the historic site something that tourists will want to visit, and you get the Gettysburg crowds to go.

Comment by John

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:06:48 EDT

Regarding Gettysburg as a location - the area is already host to the Eisenhower National Historic Site. I am not sure it makes sense to put the memorial there too.

Comment by David C

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:42:05 EDT

DCopolis. I'm with you. We could do with putting ourselves on a memorial diet. I think it would have been great if we'd decided we were only going to build one memorial/monument every 20 years (let's say), and that we'd alternate between an individual person and a larger event. That means we'd have 11 right now, with a 12th on the way. But that hasn't happened. But I'd support some kind of rationing like that.

Also, what's up with Presidents. 1 out of 4 presidents has a memorial in DC and more if you count buildings. Doesn't that seem over the top? Y'know how many we have for engineers and inventors? Only one I can think of - to the guy who invented the screw propeller. But nothing for Edison, Fulton, Whitney, the Wright Brothers, Goddard, Bell, Carrier, Birdseye, Colt, Goodyear, McCormick or Drake. If time travelers went back and killed James Garfield - who has a memorial - in his crib, we'd barely notice (even though he was totally awesome and could have been our greatest president), but kill Edison and we'd have a much different - and worse - world.

But, politicians are better at PR and naturally they want to honor their own.

Comment by DCopolis

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:12:51 EDT

Hey, how about a huge, highly visible memorial to Ike right on Pennsylvania Avenue and next to the White House? Oh yeah, it' already there - the Eisenhower Executive Office Building!

Comment by David C

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:08:17 EDT

As I understand it, yes. People say they don't like the screens and those who decided on the design have reportedly said that the screens are necessary to deal with the site. So if the site is the driver behind the bad design, then the solution is to get a new site. If on the other hand another, better design can work at the site, then those who make decisions about this should select a better design. But that isn't what they're saying.

Comment by Alex B.

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:48:04 EDT

David C,

If they've got a better design than this one, then they should present that.

Well, who decides on 'better'? And who is 'they'? They could be Gehry's team, as it was his team that won the competition. They could also be the competition jury. It's not like Gehry's design was the only entry. There was also the rogue design competition that the National Civic Art Society did. So, clearly, there are lots of different potential designs for the space - it seems your beef is with the decision makers, not the designers.

The main demerit is that the site is so limiting and so ugly that it requires screens to make it palatable. But even those aren't working.

Is that really the case? Is that a demerit of the site, or the design?

Comment by David C

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:28:15 EDT

But the same location might have produced a different design, too.

If they've got a better design than this one, then they should present that.

If we want to discuss the merits or demerits of the site, why not do so straight up?

I thought we were. The main demerit is that the site is so limiting and so ugly that it requires screens to make it palatable. But even those aren't working.

Comment by Ronald

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:05:04 EDT

It's ugly as sin and not what people want to see when they think about Eisenhower.

Gehry's made some cool things, but this one is a dud, doesn't match the location, and doesn't reflect the man. As his granddaughter said, American doesn't remember a Kansas farm boy; they remember a general who saved Europe and a president who built an industrial power.

He saved western Europe with an army. Since the Flavians, Western Europeans remember guys like that in one of two ways, neither of which is scrap metal, and we already have an obelisk. Give the man a giant arch and park it somewhere obvious.

Comment by Alex B.

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:56:21 EDT

Michael,

I'm sure the Ike people don't want that - and that's part of the problem.

And I think the entire site could easily be dedicated in his honor while still retaining flexibility and use as a park. That's the design aspect of this - these memorials are getting more and more scripted.

And yes, this isn't to say that eating lunch on the Lincoln Memorial steps is appropriate. However, the simple realities of DC's urban design more or less state that this site (or others) won't be another Lincoln Memorial.

But we also have Lincoln Park...

Comment by Dan

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:54:48 EDT

I think the whole locating the memorial between the Air and Space Museum and the Department of Education because they have loose ties to Eisenhower thing is a bit contrived, however I think the location is an excellent one for the memorial.

1. It is convenient for tourists. Many get out at L'Enfant for the Air and Space Museum and the new memorial will be right there to visit. Also if your a tourist visiting the steps of the Capitol you'll be able to see the memorial from the Capitol and it will be a short walk.

2. I always thought Air and Space was cool because of the whole military fighter thing and the military related IMAX movies. I think this aspect draws plenty of people to Air and Space. Having the Memorial for the Supreme Commander Allied European Forces next door is sure to draw traffic from Air and Space.

3. Right now the location is a giant intersection. Being a city dweller and a non-car owner it seems like a waste of space to me. Adding a park would be nice for workers in the area to have a place to enjoy lunch. Also, though I am pro people Metroing into the city, especially tourists, I recognize that there will always be people driving in - why not throw a one or two story parking garage undernneath it.

Comment by Michael (V)

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:42:32 EDT

@Alex B: I doubt the Ike people want a simple park that can be eventually used for picnickers. Regarding DuPont, though the park is named after him, the only feature of the park that's truly part of his memorial is the fountain... I think the scale of Ike's reputation correctly aligns with having an entire plaza included in his tribute. Though yeah, from an urbanist point of view these designs aren't much fun. And that boxed-in square doesn't offer much potential for symbolic greatness.

And compare the Washington Monument grounds with Washington Circle; the circle has a more urban setting but is typically empty, while the Mall location is often filled with people playing softball or flying kites. Hm, not sure if one can draw any conclusions from that :)

Anyways, you can't picnic at the Korean Monument (not that you'd want to), the Vietnam, etc etc - and don't try having lunch on the steps of the Lincoln (http://flic.kr/p/oH7Ka)... but I do agree even the grand memorials should include "unprogrammed" areas where folks can relax in the shade.

Comment by Alex B.

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:32:17 EDT

But the design is a byproduct of the location. I disagree that they would have had the same design at a different location.?

It's not like the Gehry design is the only possible design at that location, it's not a fait accompli.

So, sure - a different location might have produced a different design. But the same location might have produced a different design, too.

If we want to discuss the merits or demerits of the site, why not do so straight up?

Comment by David C

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:28:15 EDT

Seems to be more of an issue with the design rather than the location.

But the design is a byproduct of the location. I disagree that they would have had the same design at a different location.

Comment by David C

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:26:03 EDT

Also "neighborhood?" That's a stretch.

What word would you use?

There's one screen in front of the ED building (an improvement to what you currently see)

You're making my point for me now.

Comment by Alex B.

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:24:28 EDT

Because the architect and board think the memorial needs to be screened off from the neighborhood.

Seems to be more of an issue with the design rather than the location. Drop the same design approach in a different location, and you'd have the same issue.

The thematic linkage between Eisenhower and the site may be weak, but so what?

The far bigger issue for the city, I think, is the move towards memorials that are more and more rigid. The city would benefit more, in my opinion, from memorials that could evolve into parks over time.

Dupont Circle's fountain is a memorial; it also functions well as a park. Same for McPherson, Farragut, and many others. Some parks work better than others, but there's a clear versatility in the space that allows it to evolve over time.

The chosen location at least allows for the improvement of an otherwise neglected and completely underutilized space.

Comment by MLD

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:16:27 EDT

Screened off from the neighborhood? There's one screen in front of the ED building (an improvement to what you currently see) and two much smaller ones out front on Independence. They act as partial gateways but have tons of space in between them. It doesn't surround the memorial, the sight line to the capitol along Maryland Ave remains.

Also "neighborhood?" That's a stretch.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:13:38 EDT

I believe the Corcoran expansion, which was spectacular, was scrapped because the Corcoran was already having financial troubles.

Comment by David C

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:01:26 EDT

I wish it was more clear why the site is so lousy

Because the architect and board think the memorial needs to be screened off from the neighborhood.

Comment by Kirk

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:41:34 EDT

I have to agree with the location information pointed out here - the neglect of the lot, the lack of an neighborhood to advise/draw insight from, yadda, yadda... but I think fundamentally Washingtonians don't like Gehry. If you look at recent history, it's somewhat clear. The DC Council approved the multi-million dollar expansion of the Corcoran in the early 2000's, the project was ultimately scrapped (and probably part of why the Corcoran is looking to leave now) based on what Gehry is known best for, his metal work and his organic flowing designs. I am sure people liked the design - I don't think I have seen a Gehry building that I didn't like, when it sits in an appropriate location. But I think that it's easier for people to point out what they don't like about the proposed memorial design then it is for them to come right out and say that they don't like Gehry's work and that from a design perspective, his work does not blend into the fabric of the city - both a good and bad thing when it comes to design. The flip side of that, while it's great to attract artists and designers of the caliber of Mr. Gehry, one has to know your audience and that perhaps he needs to stop submitting for projects and derailing them. And it's not just Mr. Gehry's designs either, a similar folded metal abstract, almost Alice Through the Looking Glass, building was supposed to be built on the east side of 14th Street, at Church in Northwest, and while the project concept was approved, the design submitted was deemed too modern and not connected with the aesthetics (laughable as they are) of the neighborhood, and was retooled to conform.
So all of that said, perhaps a new space along with a new architect, along with clearer rules and oversight committee are what's needed to keep the memorial on track.

Comment by Matthew

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:34:50 EDT

"where is the value is having a lot of people visit an uninspiring memorial?"

I think the point of having a memorial is to have easy access to the site for visitors (not locals). You make the point that Theodore Roosevelt is away from foot traffic, but it's not hard to connect his love for being outdoors and his push for environmental policies that led to the siting.

I agree that the thematic reasoning behind the Eisenhower Memorial siting is weak, but frankly, will the reasoning for other sites be much better? This article seems to use the same logic to argue against the site. Probably the best memorial site would be part of the freeway system in southwest, where one could only experience his memorial by driving through it much like the interstate system did to american downtown cores. Joking aside, I think the point of calling it uninspiring is the real motive behind the opposition to the site. I wish it was more clear why the site is so lousy besides too many people, the education department may move, and NASA doesn't operate the Air and Space Museum.

Comment by Michael

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:26:01 EDT

I agree with spookiness. The Arlington site would be perfect and fitting given his military background. I'd be less of a stretch than linking him to the Department of Education's parent department and NASA via Air and Space (NASA HQ is actually about 3 blocks south at the corner of 4th and E ST SW)

Comment by David C

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:24:11 EDT

Pelham1861, I was not diminishing Ike's role in the creation of NASA. I was diminishing the creation of NASA on the list of Ike's achievements. For Fillmore, it might top his list, for Ike - not so much. When people think of Ike, most do not think of NASA. But even if it were his crowning achievement, the site still isn't fine or it wouldn't need curtains to hide the neighborhood.

Comment by spookiness

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:04:41 EDT

Michael,
I don't mean a St. Louis arch, more like a 1/2 scale Arc de Triomphe. It would fit within the circle, not span the road.

Comment by MLD

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:56:19 EDT

The tapestries are certainly way better looking than the facade of the ED building.

Comment by Michael

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:43:31 EDT

The law's "thematic appropriateness" requirement is interesting. Do the Washington/Lincoln/Jefferson memorials' spots have thematic appropriateness? I doubt it; they just are beautifully placed in locations that create symbolic geographies.

I would also love to see a large-scale memorial at the Awakening's old home at Hains Point, but Ike might not be the best fit there, unless you want to make him into the Colossus of Rhodes. Better to wait for a memorial to Channing Tatum.

The Maryland Ave plaza certainly could use a little love, and Gehry simply isn't a good match.

Comment by Michael

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:30:45 EDT

I agree with spookiness that an arch would be a cool addition, and a better fit for Ike than a metal curtain. Though any memorial than spans a road is instantly problematic, as we've been treating cars as security threats. Remember when you could drive in front of the Lincoln Memorial, or past the White House? Even the little parking lot by the Washington Monument (off Const Ave) was removed, and the one by the Jefferson, to say nothing of all the public parking below the museums. Maybe instead we could build an arch that goes over a bike trail?

Comment by spookiness

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:49:44 EDT

I had always thought the WWII memorial should have been a modest traditional arch in the circle between Memorial Bridge and the entrance to Arlington Cem. Maybe it would be an appropiate spot for an Ike memorial.

Comment by Fitz

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:34:54 EDT

Anything to get rid of those awful tapestries.

Semi-joking aside I think that reconsidering the site of the memorial might help lead to a better comprimise.

Comment by Arl Fan

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:27:42 EDT

Great post!

Two other sites that might allow for a great memorial design, while remaining thematically appropriate:

- The grounds of the Armed Forces Retirement Home -- Site #85 on the Task Force Report -- perhaps it could be the catalyst for reopening the grounds or some part of the grounds to the public... now that would be a fitting tribute to Eisenhower.

- Or, in keeping with the NASA link of the current location, adjacent to / on the grounds of the Air & Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy complex would offer a great space with a lot of freedom to design a memorial. Heck, you could probably put a couple of cool memorials there that would be great to visit together with the museum.

Comment by JimT

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:26:49 EDT

As a minor detail, the Department of Education was created by President Carter. Eisenhower did create the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (which Carter later split into the separate departments of Education, and Health and Human Services).

Comment by Pelham1861

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:17:41 EDT

David...either you never looked at the history of NASA when you were employed there or researched the space program...but as one who has been here for more than four decades and who's father was a part of the NASA origins...President Eisenhower was, in fact, the major force behind both. Therefore, not withstanding the lousy design of the Memorial...the placement is fine.