Greater Greater Washington

Architecture


1959 alternate Kennedy Center design

Nathaniel Kelso sent over these 50-year-old renderings of an alternate design for the Kennedy Center. It looks a bit like a UFO landed on the banks of the Potomac.

What do you think? Better or worse than what we got?


Click for larger version.
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Looks better than what we got, even if only for the interaction with the river.

I'd love to see a reverse angle to see if the bowl of spaghetti interchange design was any different on the city side.

by Alex B. on Jan 7, 2009 12:28 pm • linkreport

This one is every bit as ugly as the one we got, but seems to be much better in the way it addresses the river. I assume the cars are tunneled below this building, but this image reinforces the validity of the grand stairs recently proposed to improve the existing one. At least the one we got isn't brutalist, then we'd have another chunck of unadorned concrete to fight over.

by Thayer-D on Jan 7, 2009 12:29 pm • linkreport

I like the fountain jets in the river on either side.

by Juanita de Talmas on Jan 7, 2009 12:45 pm • linkreport

I would agree, much better than what we got, but still not great.

by William on Jan 7, 2009 12:45 pm • linkreport

Superior to what was built, but probably would have been more expensive as well. The curved facade and the steps definitely address the river, which is something the building now lacks. Also, the curved facade somehow expresses "the performing arts" better than the rectangular building - I imagine the theaters would have been wedges of the circle (or oval?) - which makes a lot more sense.

That said, the design direction to go from here would have been to play with the heights of said theaters inside the circle, raising the roof to differing heights to give identity to each of the theaters and visually represent the building as a family of events rather than a singular "spaceship".

by stevek_fairfax on Jan 7, 2009 12:47 pm • linkreport

Since it's from 1959, it obviously wasn't going to be called the "Kennedy Center". Does anyone know the original name?

by Tony on Jan 7, 2009 12:47 pm • linkreport

Wikipedia says "National Cultural Center".

by David Alpert on Jan 7, 2009 12:50 pm • linkreport

Equally nasty compared with what we got instead. Would love to see the one we did get re-faced/redesigned some day. To me it has always looked like a cheap 1960's imitation of the Lincoln Memorial that sits nearby.

by Glenn on Jan 7, 2009 12:51 pm • linkreport

Tony, the building wasn't finished until 1971, hence the Kennedy name. The initial funding was passed in 1958 for this, when the project was then known as the National Cultural Center. It started under the Eisenhower administration and Kennedy then took up the cause, with the project getting his name following his assassination.

by Alex B. on Jan 7, 2009 12:52 pm • linkreport

Can anyone imagine the US building a "National Cultural Center" today? Sigh.

by Juanita de Talmas on Jan 7, 2009 12:57 pm • linkreport

Marginally better. At least it is at the water's edge.

by dcpatton on Jan 7, 2009 1:08 pm • linkreport

I like the actual one better than this one. This version looks very dated, like the old-school "Tomorrowland" at Disneyland. I like the clean modernism of the one we have today.

(Now, if we can just do something about those acoustics...)

by Ed on Jan 7, 2009 1:11 pm • linkreport

I like it better than what was constructed ... but that doesn't mean what we got wasn't good. The current building is quite amazing. It sits like a wrapped gift box on the banks of the Potomac ... A gift of culture from the people of the US to the people of the US. (I do think though that for it to serve its purpose tickets should cost far less than they do ...) The problem at this site isn't with the building, but rather the fact that the highway interchange isolated it from the rest of the city. If the plans to fix that ever come to fruition, we'll have a building there we can continue to be proud of forever. I'm not so sure steps to the Potomac are a good idea. Visitors to the center already have a large plaza up above the parkway to enjoy the view. Putting stairs from there down to the river could endanger the views from the parkway itself ... and that would affect far more people (i.e., those driving by and enjoying the parkway) than the lesser number who actually go into the center.

by Lance on Jan 7, 2009 1:15 pm • linkreport

I much prefer the current one, with it's 1960s interpretation of the nearby Lincoln Memorial.

I'd rather, though, have seen it sited at the end of L'Enfant Promenade, as originally proposed. It would have given some nighttime activity there and a reason for people to walk along that loooong bridge to nowhere.

by Joey on Jan 7, 2009 1:21 pm • linkreport

I like the UFO better for better integration of the bank, and the lack of an ugly high on the banks. Furthermore, DC can use some futuristic architecture.

by Jasper on Jan 7, 2009 1:31 pm • linkreport

i like this design better -- and you wouldn't get that UFO look unless you were looking at it from a Rosslyn highrise. It has a better flow with the river, and clearly a much better connection to it. We need less boxy-ness in DC.

by DG-rad on Jan 7, 2009 1:33 pm • linkreport

I vote for the UFO! Seriously, the current Kennedy Center is nearly impossible to get to, and nothing about the sterile, walled-off grounds suggests that there's a theater inside. This building screams "walk in, walk in!"

by tom veil on Jan 7, 2009 1:38 pm • linkreport

UFO for the simple fact that it incorporates the river. the current one has a road in front of it. but i too wonder what the approach to it would be. its terrifically hard to get to from the city and can be dangerous to walk to with the spaghetti of roads out front.

by dano on Jan 7, 2009 1:46 pm • linkreport

what we could've had: steps down to the river after an enriching cultural experience.

what we got: "there's the watergate.... and there's the box it came in."

by jenny on Jan 7, 2009 1:55 pm • linkreport

I like it b/c of the incorporation of the river also. But the current design, I'm satisfied with. It could be re-finished or skinned to make it look more modern, have the expensive infrastructure plan that's planned for the area constructed and some way of incorporating the river also constructed. I like the dome thing on the top reminiscent of the library of congress, kinda sorta. The fountains look cool too But the architecture itself, would look really dated today, I agree with the Disneyland comment.

If we get a decent waterfront area in SE, SW and G'town, I could easily forget this old rendering.

by Vik on Jan 7, 2009 1:59 pm • linkreport

Looks like good highway access and plenty of space for parking.

by Steve on Jan 7, 2009 2:11 pm • linkreport

The current Kennedy Center fails to interact with the rest of the city; it is very much a driving destination. It's impossible to tell from this photo whether this design would have been more integrated with the streetscape.

by DMIJohn on Jan 7, 2009 2:31 pm • linkreport

I like the "original" design better. Kinda reminds me of the flying sub from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea!

by woodsider on Jan 7, 2009 2:32 pm • linkreport



"I assume the cars are tunneled below this building"

Not as far as I can tell (regarding the I-66 West Leg).

Here is my blog post with the three different West Leg designs that I am aware of:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-66-west-leg_18.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/search/label/West%20Leg

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 7, 2009 3:27 pm • linkreport

"A gift of culture from the people of the US to the people to the US."

No, it's a gift to DC-area art enthusiasts from the US taxpayers. I won't complain though. If they wanna subsidize my recreation and high culture like that, then they can build many more playlands in our area. They did a good job of footing the bill for Wolf Trap.

Please. Let us get as many more 'gifts' for the American people as possible. I'm getting bored with our current ones.

by David Ricardo on Jan 7, 2009 3:38 pm • linkreport

Um, where is Memorial Bridge?

by William on Jan 7, 2009 3:55 pm • linkreport

I see it, William. It's not very prominent in the grayscale image, but it's there.

by Alex B. on Jan 7, 2009 3:58 pm • linkreport

It's the one that goes to the Lincoln Memorial from the GW Parkway and Arlington Cemetery.

DC has a ridiculous bridge naming system. There's the I-66 bridge, which Google Maps says is the "Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge." Then there's the "Memorial Bridge" which is different. Then there's the I-395 bridge which doesn't seem to have a name, except maybe 14th Street bridge.

Why can't we just have unambigious names for each one?

by David Alpert on Jan 7, 2009 4:00 pm • linkreport

Oops, ha ha, you were asking where Memorial Bridge is in that drawing. That'll teach me to pay better attention to context.

If you click to zoom in, the picture actually includes more around the edges; I cropped it for the version on the post.

by David Alpert on Jan 7, 2009 4:02 pm • linkreport

Let's not forget that the "14th Street Bridge" is actually several bridges, and each of them has their own name. Nevermind the fact that only some of the bridge's lanes actually connect to 14th Street, none of the actual traffic arteries crossing the bridge is named 14th Street.

by Alex B. on Jan 7, 2009 4:03 pm • linkreport

David, "Memorial Bridge" is actually short for "Arlington Memorial Bridge" ... but yes, "Memorial Bridge" is what you'll hear in common parlance. The "I-66 Bridge" is never called that ... It is the TDR Memorial Bridge as you said ... but usually called just "the Roosevelt" Bridge. The 11th and 14th Street Bridges go by those names ... though I suspect they probably have placks on them somewhere naming them after someone or something ... I wouldn't go by what Google (or any other map maker) calls places ... There're often wrong.

Incidentally, a pet peeve of mine ... What used to be called "Washington National Airport" (named after the city ... and consequently "for" our first president)and commonly called "National" was renamed Reagan Washington National Airport in the early '90s. At the time all kinds of assurances were made in the press that the "Washington" part wasn't being removed ... YET, all the signs approaching that airport simply read "Reagan National Airport". I can understand that happening in Virginia ... but a good number of these signs legally sit in DC. The DC line goes to the high water mark on the south side of the river ... including "Memorial Island" which sits on the south side of the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Why did Washington DDOT folks forget the "Washington" part of the Airport's name?

by Lance on Jan 7, 2009 4:37 pm • linkreport

Yeah, I've never found the bridge naming confusing. From west-to-east (north-to-south?), colloquially they're

American Legion Bridge (or Cabin John Bridge, sometimes)

Chain Bridge

Key Bridge

Roosevelt Bridge (or I-66 Bridge, sometimes)

Memorial Bridge

14th Street Bridge (or Rochambeau or Long Bridge, sometimes)

Woodrow Wilson Bridge

Am I missing a Potomac crossing?

by Joey on Jan 7, 2009 4:41 pm • linkreport

Just to clarify, Memorial Island (which the George Washington Parkway runs through south of Memorial Bridge) is under DC jurisdiction. Why can't we correct the signs pointing to the airport that sit on that island as well as those on the bridges such as the 14th Street bridge ... since all that area is under DC jurisdiction? I understand these roads/bridges are federal roads and bridges, but doesn't signage get handled at the local/state level? And wouldn't it be nice to get the "Washington" back in our airport's name?

by Lance on Jan 7, 2009 4:42 pm • linkreport

"...the current Kennedy Center is nearly impossible to get to..."

How so? It's a five-minute walk from the Foggy Bottom Metro, station, has a bus stop even closer, has a huge parking garage underneath, and has major roads (Virginia Ave., Constitution Ave., and Rock Creek Pkwy.) and major bridges from Virginia leading directly to it.

My complaint is the lack of nearby eateries (few options in the Watergate complex), and I'm aesthetically challenged so I'll refrain from judging the architecture.

by Rocky6 on Jan 7, 2009 4:45 pm • linkreport

No Joey, I think you have 'em all. The renaming of the Cabin John Bridge was another of those politically inspired moves which probably shouldn't have happened in an area where we "all need to get along". I wasn't living in the DC area when it got renamed (but had lived here prior). I remember coming back and hearing all these references to this "new bridge" on the radio. I was surprised to hear it was the Cabin John they were talking about.

by Lance on Jan 7, 2009 4:46 pm • linkreport

I believe the northbound auto bridge of the 14st. St. bridge complex (5 of them) of bridges was named the Rochambeau Bridge and then renamed the Arland D. Williams, Jr. Memorial Bridge in commemoration of his heroism when the a plane crashed into the bridge.

Then the center bridge going both ways was named the Rochambeau and the southbound bridge is the George Mason Memorial Bridge.

The 1903 (rebuilt 1943) Long Bridge carries CSX, Amtrak and Virginia Railway Express rail traffic over the river.

The 1983 Charles R. Fenwick Bridge—named for a Virginia state senator that played a critical role in the creation of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority—carries the Yellow Line of the Washington Metro across the river.

This is from wikipedia, but I remembered hearing stories back in the day from my parents about the crash.

by Vik on Jan 7, 2009 4:55 pm • linkreport

On the subject of Potomac bridges, why is it necessary to build a tunnel for a hypothetical new WMATA line from Georgetown to Rosslyn? I've read this elsewhere and always been curious, I assume a bridge is cheaper than a tunnel.

by Steve on Jan 7, 2009 5:00 pm • linkreport

Vik has it more or less correct. But in common parlance, the Williams, Rochambeau, and George Mason bridges are collectively called simply the "14th St Bridge (or sometimes Bridges)".

And they'll all be restricted on Inauguration Day, just like every other Potomac bridge inside the beltway.

by Froggie on Jan 7, 2009 5:02 pm • linkreport

@Steve, I'm assuming that, besides the attractive Key Bridge vista we may want to maintain, there's just no room on the DC side to ramp a hypothetical bridge down into the granite underneath Georgetown east of the Key Bridge.

by Joey on Jan 7, 2009 5:06 pm • linkreport

I actually like this. The curves are sort of organic, hinting at the curves of the river, and yes it engages the water better.

I also like the overhang and the recessed and shaded area beneath. This would be a lovely place for outdoor dining or small concerts, and you could see where this design could have had some of the buzzing outdoor vibe that whatever that place with Sequoia is called.

Does anybody know who the designer is? It still looks like Edward Durrell Stone.

The final design of the Kennedy Center would be better in the originally intended site farther downriver.

by spookiness on Jan 7, 2009 5:45 pm • linkreport

Steve - Many hate the idea of any more obstructions to the views on the Potomac River. In addition, I believe that the line going beneath DC would have to be deep-bored to eliminate costs & hassles associated with urban near-surface work in such a crucial corridor, and the many different types of rock strata running west-east. If most of the line is a deep tunnel, and the Rosslyn side is a deep tunnel (97 feet below surface, in order to accommodate the existing orange-blue tunnel), may as well use a deep tunnel under the river. Whether a Separated Blue Line should go over or under the Anacostia River, and where it should rejoin other tracks, is IMO still up for debate.

Lance - The name should never have been changed, particularly not to that ungodly 12-syllable agglomeration.

"Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport" flat-out shouldn't be used by any signmaker concerned with legibility.

by Squalish on Jan 7, 2009 5:45 pm • linkreport

Joey,

Strictly speaking, the "Long Bridge" refers to the Pennsylvania Railroad bridge across the Potomac, the one just downriver from the Metro bridge. The Long Bridge now owned by CSX.

by Paul on Jan 7, 2009 6:11 pm • linkreport

Squalish: that hasn't stopped Metro from posting the full name at the Yellow/Blue Line station...

by Froggie on Jan 7, 2009 6:16 pm • linkreport

Squalish: that hasn't stopped Metro from posting the full name at the Yellow/Blue Line station...

Isn't that because Rep. Bob Barr had a fit and threatened to withhold funds from Metro?

by Paul on Jan 7, 2009 6:20 pm • linkreport

Juanita, the US DID just build a huge cultural center - The National Museum of the American Indian

by Bianchi on Jan 7, 2009 6:41 pm • linkreport

Yes, "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport" is almost as bad as "Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport". What are these fools thinking?

by Vicente Fox on Jan 7, 2009 9:00 pm • linkreport

Well ... most of us still call it just "National" ... The problem is with the new folks in town ... like David ... who understandably call it by the signs they see everywhere ... i.e., "Reagan Airport".

by Lance on Jan 7, 2009 10:38 pm • linkreport

It will always be National Airport.

Does anyone else still call Marshall/BWI, Friendship? Or is that just me?

by William on Jan 7, 2009 10:48 pm • linkreport

Lance: There's no need for gratuitous digs at me. I've always insisted people call the airport National. Also, see the first fantasy map I did back in February. Even the one I made for WMATA studiously avoids any mention of our 40th President.

by David Alpert on Jan 8, 2009 8:11 am • linkreport

David, It wasn't a dig. Really. It was a reference to our discussion earlier in the year where you initially called it Reagan Airport but changed it to National when I explained the history/sensitivity of the name change here in Washington. It was an acknowledgement that the signage used is powerful because THAT is what will determine what a place is called over the long run since as new people move to the DC area without knowledge of prior history, i.e., they will rely on the signs. No dig.

by Lance on Jan 8, 2009 8:19 am • linkreport

OK, fair enough. Nonetheless, I believe you are still mistaken. I've always refused to call it Reagan. I think you are recalling this thread, in which I said "it used to be called National," and you explained that technically National was still part of the name.

by David Alpert on Jan 8, 2009 8:29 am • linkreport

I especially love the little pertruding Jefferson dome out of the top which could only be seen from the air. It illustrates the strange relationship with historical forms and sites many modernists have as if it's forbidden fruit. It should be a requirement that all large public buildings be represented by at least one ground floor perspective so the public could get a realistic view of how the public would experience the proposed building. How about the George W. Bush Metro system?

by Thayer-D on Jan 8, 2009 8:34 am • linkreport

David, Yes that was the thread. Btw, a suggestion ... I miss your "old" blog which focused mainly on DC issues. I know you're seeking to do wider coverage today (and hence all the guest bloggers), but would there be a way to reorganize the blog by city/county (e.g. "Washington", "MoCo", "PG", "Arlington") so that those of us more interested in one area can go directly to there for those posts? Thanks

by Lance on Jan 8, 2009 8:48 am • linkreport

@ Lance: I would strongly oppose that idea.

The whole problem with this metro area is that people do not want to see it as a whole. Let me repeat that. *The whole problem with this metro area is that people do not want to see it as a whole.*

That is why it takes 20 years to get a metro line to the airport.

That is why Tyson's is a mess while neighboring Arlington is an urban gem.

That is why half the world know Central Park, but half of the locals do not realize that we have Rock Creek Park which is more than twice as large.

That is why students of UMD and GMU barely know the district, and students of Georgetown and GW barely know anything outside of the district.

That is why our metro area has a metro system comparable to that of Kiev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Metro) in stead of comparable metro areas such as London or Paris.

That is why people from south-west Virginia (technically west of Detroit) to people on the Atlantic coast in Maryland (almost east of Philly) get something to say our about metro, while we ourselves are busy chattering about our local DOTs not correctly naming our local airports.

In short, that is why nothing happens here.

by Jasper on Jan 8, 2009 10:22 am • linkreport

Well said, Jasper. It's not like residents of the different local jurisdictions don't ever cross the borders. My world of work, play, and shopping is pretty much the Red Line. Last time I checked, that crosses lines. I have friends who live on the Blue/Yellow in Arlington, the Green, and the Orange. All those places cross lines. If anything, our experience with the Metro has shown how interconnected we all are.

As far as policy debates, the planners in the different jurisdictions look to their neighbors all the time to see what works for them.

by Cavan on Jan 8, 2009 10:32 am • linkreport

If anyone is interested in jurisdiction-specific or even topic-specific posts, you can look at the posts matching a certain tag. All posts about the District have the Washington tag; there's also Maryland and Virginia.

by David Alpert on Jan 8, 2009 10:38 am • linkreport

Jasper/Cavan, I understand your points, and agree we need better trans-jurisdictional planning. As I've expressed previously, I think many of the problems we face today are because the federal district has outgrown its boundaries. I.e., I'd like to see the federal district expanded to all the areas that really are "Washington" ... sort of how in the 19th century when New York City outgrew Manhattan, the 5 boroughs got created and a political and geographical NYC reflecting the "real" NYC was born.

That said ... The political and geographical realities currently are such that we really do have many separate and distint entities in this area with many and distinct issues and problems. Because this blog covers so many topics (i.e., everything from historic preservation to bus shelters), having everything in one thread starts to bog down (IMHO) once you have all these different topics being discussed sequentially for all these different jurisdictions. Again, I wish we were one entity ... a real "City of Washington" federal district stretching from Fredericksburg to Frederick and Chantilly to Howard County ... but we're not ... And while we can't focus on a "greater greater Washington" jurisdictional entity which doesn't exist, we might lose focus of those smaller jurisdictional entities which really do exist if we try to bite off too much ... Does that make any sense? I'm not being critical. I just think David's "old" blog served a real purpose to DC (especially downtown) and feel that purpose (and the good it did) is threatened with dilution.

by Lance on Jan 8, 2009 11:11 am • linkreport

I am getting really off-topic here.

@ Cavan:

Jurisdictions may look at each other, but they don't act together. Especially not when money gets involved. MD and DC don't want to pay for the silver line, "because it does not benefit them". Arlington could not care less about the widening of I-66 "because they should not have to pay for the mistakes in planning that Fairfax and Loundoun made".

In short, everybody looks at their neighbors, but holds strongly to the NIMBY syndrom. Whether it's reasonable or not. And NIMBY is the best reason to do absolutely nothing.

by Jasper on Jan 8, 2009 3:35 pm • linkreport

As much of what is discussed does not go through one's backyard, and often in the context of it serving others, a better term IMHO is 'parochialism':

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/07/washington-dc-parochialism-emanating.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/07/parochialist-planning-sells-out.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-this-was-outcome-of-highly.html

See the tag by that name, along with that of "new medievalism'.

Also, Rich Layman has a good example in today's posting at his blog.

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 8, 2009 3:47 pm • linkreport

I think if this design had been built the building would have been continually flooded. The Potomac water level varies dramatically. I suspect that's one of the reasons why the current design was picked.

Also, though not on point, I like using "Reagan National" (as opposed to just Reagan or just National) just as I now use "Marshall BWI" rather than just Thurgood Marshall or just BWI.

Some people need to get over the fact that buildings have been named for conservatives. And I find it very ironic that there isn't the same knee jerk reaction by conservatives when buildings are named for liberals. For example, when President Bush renamed it the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building no one saw a flood of conservative lawyers (of which there were many) fleeing from that building. And conservatives, for some reason, don't have a problem in calling Idlewild Airport JFK.

by JT on Jan 9, 2009 9:48 am • linkreport

I don't think flooding would be too big of an issue - there's a substantial number of steps there and a pretty big grade change between the glass and the water level. It would be a real pain to sandbag all of that in the event of a hurricane or a big storm surge up the Potomac, though.

As far as Reagan National goes, the problem is the airport was already named for someone - George Washington. There was an orgy of people trying to name stuff after Reagan, including stuff that was already named for prominent Americans - like putting Reagan on the $20 bill, for example - take that, Andrew Jackson!

There was a big hubbub about this in Wisconsin, where some Republican rep wanted to name a state highway for Reagan, despite the fact that Reagan never held office in the state, never really visited that often, never had any specific connections there. The governor vetoed it on the grounds of Wisconsin things should be named for Wisconsinites - and that a portion of the road already was named for a famous Wisconsinite - Frank Lloyd Wright.

The final straw with Reagan National, of course, is that renaming stuff has very real costs. There's a lot of signage to replace, and some rep's petty political grandstanding has real world costs. Not that this concerned them.

Also, one has to consider what it is you are naming. Kennedy was a logical choice for the Kennedy Center, as JFK promoted the arts, promoted DC culture, and helped raise funds for the project. Reagan makes sense for the Reagan Building in the Federal Triangle (which, like the Kennedy Center, was a new building getting a name), but naming an airport after him when Reagan was the one to break the Air Traffic Control union? That's not exactly a peachy legacy.

by Alex B. on Jan 9, 2009 10:23 am • linkreport

In addition ... Ideally there should be a real sensitivity in naming public accommodations here in the national capital. This is supposed to be neutral ground - where the nation comes together free from local and partisan politics.

I would just as much have opposed renaming Washington National to Clinton National as I do Reagan National. I think it's safe to say that Washington (as in George Washington) long ago stopped being controversial ... and instead is a symbol for the republic ... and united republic. A hundred years from now Pres. Reagan may symbolize the same to future generations. He certainly doesn't know any more than Clinton, Bush, etc.

by Lance on Jan 9, 2009 10:37 am • linkreport

Okay ... let me try those last sentences again ... my typos made them non-readable:

*a united republic. A hundred years from now Pres. Reagan may symbolize the same to future generations. He certainly doesn't now any more than Clinton, Bush, etc. do.

by Lance on Jan 9, 2009 10:41 am • linkreport

Doug,

What do you consider medievalism? Chosing rail over cars?

by NikolasM on Jan 9, 2009 2:51 pm • linkreport

An attitude such as opposing any new bridges/tunnels/roads, including that displayed by the post on Richard Layman's site about a day or two ago, dated cir. 1837.

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 9, 2009 2:54 pm • linkreport

I typed "post" when I meant to type "poster".

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 9, 2009 2:55 pm • linkreport

Yes, the designer for the version you see is one of Stone's earlier versions.

by Richard on Jan 18, 2009 3:39 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us