Greater Greater Washington

Eisenhower Memorial will be a nice park. Is that enough?

If you like the FDR and MLK Memorials then you'll probably like the Eisenhower Memorial. The latest designs follow the now-familiar model for new federal memorials, with an informal stone centerpiece amid a pleasant park.


Eisenhower Memorial site plan. All images from NCPC.

Earlier this month, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) released the latest Eisenhower plans, in preparation for a September 12 review meeting.

The proposed design will re-conceive the mess of turn lanes and parking lots where Maryland Avenue SW meets Independence Avenue as a lovely city square. From that perspective, the design is a great victory for DC.

Since the buildings around the memorial are generally uninteresting and devoid of activity, architect Frank Gehry has included several elements that will make the square function as a better and more interesting urban room.


Tapestries form the border of an urban room (left), while an amenity-filled promenade helps draw people to the site (right).

Tall tapestries, covered with graphics, will surround and help frame the square, and will hide the eyesore buildings behind. Along the back edge, an activity-filled promenade will add an element of mixed-use, helping to draw more people. The promenade will include a sidewalk cafe, an art exhibition area, and a visitor center.

The memorial itself, at the center of the new square, will consist of stone blocks and metal statues arranged in a casual, informal plan. Like the FDR Memorial, it will be more introspective than monumental.


Central memorial.

The informal stone concept used at FDR and MLK has become popular because it works. Just about everyone likes it, and it doesn't offend anybody. The same will likely be true for Eisenhower.

But I do wonder how many more similar memorials we can build before the idea becomes a cliche. Ironically, a classical alternative would be more daring.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Dan Malouff is a professional transportation planner for the Arlington County Department of Transportation. He has a degree in Urban Planning from the University of Colorado, and lives a car-free lifestyle in Northwest Washington. His posts are his own opinions and do not represent the views of his employer in any way. He runs the blog BeyondDC and also contributes to the Washington Post Local Opinions blog. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Originally, I was not a fan but I actually think it looks pretty nice. I particularly like the way the screens look illuminated at night. To quibble, I'd prefer the screens fit within the right of way and not just the historic cartway (page 125 of the NCPC pdf).

by 7r3y3r on Aug 29, 2013 1:17 pm • linkreport

I always liked this plan. Not spectacular but will possibly be among my favorites of the lesser monuments. Looks like it will be a great space especially for locals and workers downtown since its a little off the beaten track for monuments.

by BTA on Aug 29, 2013 1:22 pm • linkreport

I won't comment on the quality of the memorial itself but it will be a great improvement that some of the impervious pavement surrounding at least one of the federal buildings at/near L'Enfant Plaza will be replaced.

by 202_cyclist on Aug 29, 2013 1:34 pm • linkreport

now-familiar model for new federal memorials, with an informal stone centerpiece amid a pleasant park...

The informal stone concept used at FDR and MLK has become popular because it works. Just about everyone likes it, and it doesn't offend anybody.

Dan, I'm baffled by what is "informal" about the giant, Communist-inspired statute of MLK that is the centerpiece of his memorial. The FDR Memorial, sure, but MLK?

As to whether this approach "doesn't offend anybody," well, that seems to ignore the intense controversy over the appropriateness and the design of the MLK statue, even before the errors in inscription were revealed. And while the design of FDR provoked only limited controversy, the content has certainly spawned heated debate (and, I believe, changes during design and construction) regarding his wheelchair, cigarette holder, Eleanor, etc.

I'm not a hater of this round of Eisenhower designs -- although I don't understand why we need a ginormous monument dedicated exclusively to him, or to any President of lesser acclaim than Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, or the two Roosevelts. But I think it's far from "likely" that this will be "popular" the way the FDR is.

To the extent it resembles that monument's informal design, the walls ("tapestries") in the drawing above are disproportionate to the human activities and historical elements. I fear that, rather than being a relaxing counterpoint to Lincoln, Jefferson, etc., the way the FDR is, the result of this design will be overwhelming and oppressive that is not a comfortable place to linger. Yes, absent the tapestries, the space is surrounded by dull buildings (I think "eyesore" is a stretch), but those buildings are much further away because the streets are between them and the space. The tapestry walls here will much more tightly enclose the area than those buildings do.

Obviously, these risks are even greater to the ability of the memorial to serve as an active public space, to be used like a park, than to its memorial function. I hope you're right that it turns out to be a "pleasant park," but color me very skeptical.

by Bitter Brew on Aug 29, 2013 1:44 pm • linkreport

Bitter Brew:
"I'm not a hater of this round of Eisenhower designs -- although I don't understand why we need a ginormous monument dedicated exclusively to him, or to any President of lesser acclaim than Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, or the two Roosevelts."

I am still eagerly awaiting the designs for the Nixon memorial.

by 202_cyclist on Aug 29, 2013 1:46 pm • linkreport

This space could then be used for other memorials as well. (What happened to a nice bronze statue? If I'm ever famous that's how I'm dictating any memorials to me be done up.) though it'd be interesting to see how the question of a memorial within a memorial is handled though we do fine in other areas of the city (notably the statues in Malcolm x/meridian hill park).

by drumz on Aug 29, 2013 1:49 pm • linkreport

Dan-- I understand and realize this is on Independence Ave but how will this relate to the rebuilt federal office buildings and streetscape improvements at 3rd & C Street SW and the reconfigured area between Bartholdi Park botanical garden and the Dept. of Health & Human Services next to I-395? It seems like there have been a lot of improvements around Federal Center SW that haven't really received a lot of attention.

by 202_cyclist on Aug 29, 2013 1:52 pm • linkreport

I am still eagerly awaiting the designs for the Nixon memorial.

202: sadly, I think there's an element of Nixon-memorialization that will be implicit in any Eisenhower memorial. That's certainly one reason I would forego a full square-block celebration. Maybe we could have a "WWII leaders park" adjacent to the World War II Memorial and fill it with tributes to Ike, Nimitz, Bradley, etc.?

by Bitter Brew on Aug 29, 2013 1:59 pm • linkreport

The design will be a pleasant park if you think it's pleasant to have 80' x 11' pillars towering over you. (They are bigger than the interior columns in the National Building Museum.) At the last meeting of the Fine Arts Commission, two Commissioners--both Gehry's friends--specifically asked Gehry to remove the "side panels" because of the size and placement of the pillars. Without those panels, the "urban room" idea falls apart.

Note, incidentally, that visitors will be able to enjoy the park in very limited ways. The only places they can walk are on the paving and on the diagonal greensway (which will soon turn to mud). Everything else is a swale, the latest fad in landscape architecture. Also, the "Central memorial" rendering above is false, like so many of Gehry's renderings of the Memorial. There will be a grouping of trees blocking the view of the Memorial Core from the greensway.

And the central core won't be offensive only if you think it's appropriate that the focal point is a statue of Eisenhower as a life-size teen dreamer seated on a wall--a sentimental piece of kitsch that belongs in a snow globe.

Justin Shubow
President
National Civic Art Society
http://www.civicart.org
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.net

by Justin Shubow on Aug 29, 2013 2:08 pm • linkreport

I think the common element is that war hero presidents get a monument. Nixon/Vietnam probably won't qualify. I suppose technically Wilson should but he seemed like kind of an unpleasant person so I don't think anyone is really pushing for that one. You could also argue Jefferson wasn't really a war hero but I'd say he gets a pass for the whole Declaration of Independence thing.

by BTA on Aug 29, 2013 2:12 pm • linkreport

202: Can't we please have a Nixon memorial where the Deep Throat parking garage is coming down?!

by Sally M on Aug 29, 2013 5:14 pm • linkreport

Nixon's memorial is the EPA and every publicly funded methadone clinic.

1970-Narcotics Treatment Administration is founded.

"The Nixon administration provides funds to allow Dr. Robert DuPont to expand his methadone program in Washington D.C. ...one year after the program begins, burglaries in D.C. decrease by 41%."

1971(June 17)Nixon declares war on drugs.

During the Nixon era, for the only time in the history of the war on drugs, the majority of funding goes towards treatment, rather than law enforcement."

by Tina on Aug 29, 2013 5:26 pm • linkreport

"Tall tapestries, covered with graphics, will surround and help frame the square, and will hide the eyesore buildings behind"

This statement identifies the biggest problem with the design. If the buildings around the site are that bad) and they are), a park shouldn't assume it will always be that way. Aspiring to what could be seems to be a more uplifting approach to urban design than screening what is. Eventually the low rise buildings will be re-developed, and hopefully into something a bit more pedestrian friendly.

by Thayer-D on Aug 29, 2013 8:43 pm • linkreport

I mean this seriously: Will there be any place to buy snacks or a coffee? The food situation is dire down near the mall, and London and Paris has classy food concessions in their parks. (And I think DC has one over by the Lincoln Memorial) Encourages people to stick around.

by 20816 on Aug 29, 2013 9:06 pm • linkreport

Someone had to be kidding when they decided to have a bas-relief sculpture show Eisenhower signing the civil rights law he did nothing to promote. His attorney general, Herbert Brownell, was the only administration official who actively supported it. Eisenhower knew something had to be done to reduce our internationally embarrassing racial situation, but he had no sympathy for the pushy instigators who made the headlines. Is this an attempt to honor LBJ by showing DDE signing the legislation that owed its passage entirely to the majority leader of the Senate? If so, the muddled relationship between the Johnson Education Building and the Eisenhower Memorial in its front yard suddenly becomes meaningful.

by Don Hawkins on Aug 29, 2013 9:39 pm • linkreport

Eisenhower, frankly, was a mediocre president. he was known mostly for golf and heart attacks. he brought the Korean War to its not entirely satisfying end (endless occupation) and his best known speech was his closer about the military-industrial complex, to which he definitely contributed. FDR didn't want a memorial. Eisenhower's wishes are never discussed but his descendants certainly seem to support it. Eisenhower's reputation as a president received its big boost after Watergate and during the ineffectual Ford and Carter years. His memorial opens the door for other non-stellar presidents to clutter the mall. This design seems to be monumental in a way that's unconnected to the man. Unless there's going to be a quote about the military-industrial complex, a putting green would be a more fitting memorial.

As for Wilson (mentioned upthread). He's easily the most overrated of presidents. He brought Jim Crow to the federal government (and codified it in DC) and lacked the political acumen to make his signature proposal, the League of Nations, happen. We already have his house. that's enough.

by Rich on Aug 29, 2013 10:58 pm • linkreport

I concur with Thayer. The tapestries are the most expensive and least effective feature of the memorial. They can be replaced with something more inventive.

by Neil Flanagan on Aug 29, 2013 11:37 pm • linkreport

The existing site is terrible. DC has so much work to do to fix countless spaces like the existing site. The proposed design is a huge improvement. It's imperfect. Let's get it done and move on to the next space! I'm grateful there is a group organizing to make this happen (...and I'm too ignorant to know whether Eisenhower is deserving).

Massive metal tapestries are new, inventive, and risky. None of us knows how it'll feel. That's exciting. I am eager to see how it works. If the tapestries are a design failure, at least we'll have a park, and a new experience. If they're bad enough, they'll eventually be removed. Thayer makes a great point that the adjacent buildings needn't be terrible, but I don't believe that is the motive for the tapestries.

The severe design failure here is the array of large, boring columns that support the tapestry. We have experience to know that these will be a detraction. Geary has chosen to ignore this problem. Perhaps he has invented some theory about what they represent and how they contribute. They don't. Personally, I'd direct any remaining energy put into somehow softening (or celebrating) these missile silos, but not if such tinkering risks leaving us with the status quo for many more years.

by Jonathon on Aug 30, 2013 9:54 am • linkreport

@ Rich "Eisenhower, frankly, was a mediocre president. he was known mostly for golf and heart attacks. he brought the Korean War to its not entirely satisfying end (endless occupation) and his best known speech was his closer about the military-industrial complex, to which he definitely contributed."

I'd say he's probably remembered fondly for the peace and prosperity of the 1950s, even if that wasn't all his doing.

"As for Wilson (mentioned upthread). He's easily the most overrated of presidents. He brought Jim Crow to the federal government (and codified it in DC) and lacked the political acumen to make his signature proposal, the League of Nations, happen."

He did make the League of Nations happen (1919-1939 RIP), but Congress threw their usual hissy fit about global organizations. He may have had his shortcomings, but he was certainly exceptional in the realm of foreign affairs.

by Chris S. on Aug 30, 2013 10:26 am • linkreport

The MLK statue and even some of the features of the FDR memorial look like they were done by some of the socialist-realism sculptors who did the busts of dead Soviet leaders next to the Kremlin Wall. We could have done better.

by Alf on Aug 30, 2013 10:33 am • linkreport

"The severe design failure here is the array of large, boring columns that support the tapestry"

I agree with this also. They are very grandious for a general who was relatively humble and who fought totalitarian regiems that seem more in keeping with this gesture.

by Thayer-D on Aug 30, 2013 10:37 am • linkreport

Eisenhower, frankly, was a mediocre president

+1

As for Wilson (mentioned upthread). He's easily the most overrated of presidents. He brought Jim Crow to the federal government (and codified it in DC) and lacked the political acumen to make his signature proposal, the League of Nations, happen.

Also +1

He may have had his shortcomings but he was certainly exceptional in the realm of foreign affairs.

Wilson's shortcomings extend beyond his overt racism and resegregation of the civil service to foreign affairs as well.

His reelection platform was to keep us out of WWI, but he was then duped as badly as the Bush Administration in Iraq, swallowing whole a series of fabricated intelligence reports by the British about German massacres and pillaging of the Dutch.

By officially harassing and turning a blind eye to private harassment (including lynching) of German-Americans during the war, he opened the door to the Japanese-American interments of WWII.

He bears partial responsibility (with Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and others) for the shortsighted Versailles Treaty and its contribution to the next war.

And the League of Nations was his failure. He did not face a "usual hissy fit" about global organizations -- his ineptness triggered the hissy fit that became usual.

Let's stop wasting public space and money with the celebration of mediocre politicians like Wilson and Eisenhower.

by Bitter Brew on Aug 30, 2013 11:01 am • linkreport

It should be noted that Eisenhower's memorial is not solely about his presidency, but also about his military career. And we've got lots of memorials, squares, and circles to various generals, admirals, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Henry_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_G._Farragut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevet_Lt._General_Winfield_Scott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Francis_Du_Pont
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_marquis_de_La_Fayette
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._McPherson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_M._Stanton

by Alex B. on Aug 30, 2013 11:13 am • linkreport

wilson was responsible for the the clayton antitrust act, not only establshing the FTC but exempting labor unions from antitrust law. And for the federal reserve. Etc. The revisionist portrayal of him as a domestic reactionary based on his (wrongheaded to be sure) position on the federal service has obscured his important accomplishments. and is largely anachronistic, looking at a different era through a lens of modern attitudes. Did some pols at the time oppose resegregating the civil service? Yes - but many such "racial progressives" supported eugenics based arguments for limiting immigration.

the rationale for US entry into the war was not based on falsehoods.

He got the best treaty he could. Absent his role it would have been worse. Of course given the outcome, its hard to say how the end result would have been worse, but thats a problem with evaluating any action in international affairs in that era.

and I am dubious anyone else could have gotten the league and the treaty through the Senate.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 30, 2013 11:24 am • linkreport

A few others, in case we're still not comfortable putting Eisenhower in this category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheridan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Seward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Truxtun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemas_Ward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Logan

Debating the design is one thing, but the nature of the location isn't placing Eisenhower up there with Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington. Likewise, debating Gehry's design is one thing, but the general concept for the memorial is to make the space a park and an urban square, in the tradition of other civic spaces in DC.

We even have precedent for memorials for generals-turned-presidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_Memorial

by Alex B. on Aug 30, 2013 11:27 am • linkreport

I like Ike!

by Thayer-D on Aug 30, 2013 11:39 am • linkreport

@Alex B.: When was the most recent of all the statutes of generals and admirals you named? Maybe 1930 or 1940, with the possible exception of Seward, with the majority of the dedications being in the late 19th/early 20th centuries? Although there's a Pershing Park somewhere, right?

When the country was young and public space was unlimited, we could afford to commemorate every important general or minor hero with a circle or square of their own, but at some point we learned to treat public space as a precious commodity and desisted. Now (thanks to the horrific assassination of President Kennedy and the Republican love affair with President Reagan), the pendulum is shifting back the other way, so every president gets an aircraft carrier, an airport, a square in Washington, etc.

A Walker and Chris S. and I may disagree about Wilson, but I don't hear anyone arguing that Eisenhower was anything other than a mediocre president. He was certainly an important WWII military leader, so let's honor him in connection with that war, and use the space at Maryland and Independence for something else.

by Bitter Brew on Aug 30, 2013 12:04 pm • linkreport

I don't hear anyone arguing that Eisenhower was anything other than a mediocre president

Never mind, Thayer-D has got it covered :)

by Bitter Brew on Aug 30, 2013 12:05 pm • linkreport

It's time in this discussion for someone to point out that we all might not be here today if not for Eisenhower's understanding of war and power. The country and the congress were full of rabid nuts who wanted to defeat communism by any means. Eisenhower knew how and when to feint with America's military superiority to avoid WWIII. As soon as JFK demonstrated his lack of confidence as commander-in-chief, Kruschev built the Berlin wall. I was an Adlai Stevenson supporter, but looking back I see that he would probably have been bullied into unnecessary aggressiveness by the same people who tried but failed to get Eisenhower to be more militarily active. He didn't win the European campaign by being a dummy, and he didn't forget what he learned in the war when he became president.

by Don Hawkins on Aug 30, 2013 12:46 pm • linkreport

Re Eisenhower's worthiness for a Memorial: Putting aside the fact that he's one of only three men in history to lead a successful invasion across the English Channel (the others being Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror), in numerous rankings by historians, Eisenhower is commonly placed in the top 10--in recent years, most commonly at 8. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Once in office as President, he immediately negotiated an armistice ending the fighting in the Korean War, and guided America through an era of unprecedented peace, prosperity, and unity. During his years in office--during some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War--**not a single American soldier was killed in combat**. Despite his generals' requests, he refused to intervene in Vietnam.

The most important book on Ike in the White House is Fred I. Greenstein’s "The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader. The groundbreaking 1982 book played the largest role in historians’ reevaluation of Eisenhower’s greatness. It made extensive use of what was until then Eisenhower's secret activities. As head of state, Eisenhower publicly personified the uncommon common man, the statesman above politics. Behind the scenes he was a shrewd chief executive who judiciously wielded his formidable political power. (Sadly, this is still not widely known.) Unlike in most democracies, America doesn't separate its head of state (who must be a unifier) and its chief executive (who must be an inevitably divisive politician). Ike masterfully combined the two, and was the last to do so.

Furthermore, he balanced the budget, fought inflation, and passed the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. He also secretly undermined Joe McCarthy.

Also, he was a man of the highest character--a genuine uncorruptible George Washington-like figure. For example, after he and MacArthur successfully stewarded the development of the Philippines in the 1930s, President Quezon privately offered them cash gifts as thanks: in current dollars, $600,000 to Ike, $5,000,000 to MacArthur. MacArthur took the money, but Eisenhower turned it down. This was not publicly known until the 1980s.

Justin Shubow
President
National Civic Art Society
http://www.civicart.org
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.net

by Justin Shubow on Aug 30, 2013 12:53 pm • linkreport

When the country was young and public space was unlimited, we could afford to commemorate every important general or minor hero with a circle or square of their own, but at some point we learned to treat public space as a precious commodity and desisted.

This is the wrong lesson to take from DC's Civil War circle and square memorials: the lesson to take from those is how to create an appropriate memorial while still maintaining a useful public space that can evolve with the surrouding city over time.

We do need restraint in our memorializing, but not in the creation of memorials. No matter what bar you set, Eisenhower will surpass it. He is worthy. Furthermore, the matter has already been debated and settled.

The open question is to the design of the space; and as I mention above, this is the more important question, frankly.

by Alex B. on Aug 30, 2013 1:03 pm • linkreport

We do need to put the brakes on memorial building at some point. There simply isn't enough space to commemorate every significant leader/event from now until the end of time. As much as I think it is important to honor those who served in WWII, did they really have to put a gigantic sea of concrete smack dab in the middle of the mall?

by Chris S. on Aug 30, 2013 4:58 pm • linkreport

It's not that we need a break on memorials, it's that we need a rethink on the necessity of huge sites for all of them to interpret every part of a persons life.

You could call it Eisenhower park, put up the columns and still have plenty of room for other memorials to 20th century heros in Ike Park.

by drumz on Aug 30, 2013 5:18 pm • linkreport

We also need to think about more temporary memorials. Some memorials should be permanent, but others could be shipped off to other cities after 100 years. We have memorials to McClellan and Buchanan for lords sake. Lets upgrade those. We've done it several times before.

by David C on Aug 30, 2013 8:36 pm • linkreport

"As much as I think it is important to honor those who served in WWII, did they really have to put a gigantic sea of concrete smack dab in the middle of the mall? "

The WWII memorial was as much a part of the McMillan plan as the Lincoln memorial or the reflecting pool, so it depends on which parts you like or don't like. Eitherway, it privides a good contrasto the Ike Memorial in that they are both memorials in public spaces that use over sized colonades to embrace the space.

One space is humanized by columns that are proportional to people while the other space has "pure" cylindrical shapes with out any distinction beyond their gargantual scale. One space attempts to screen out the surroundings with litteral screens while the other accents the site's geometry and views.

Now the Ike memorial might proove to be as moving as the stand alone Vietnam Memorial and the WWII memorial might remind some of the pre-cast postmodernism of Reston Town Center, but one seems more about the space and the other about itself. But in the strict urban square context, deference to the site's geometry would have resulted in a much more urbane solution. It dosen't have to be a dead general on a horse (or jeep) approach of the late 19th century, but a more humble design would have been both the right tone for the space (despite it's banal styling) and for the man who's greatest achievements wheren't trumpeted on the deck of an air craft carrier.

by Thayer-D on Aug 30, 2013 9:54 pm • linkreport

I think that a dead general on a jeep would be a pretty awesome approach to a memorial.

by David R. on Aug 30, 2013 10:38 pm • linkreport

I think the common element is that war hero presidents get a monument.

So I take it we'll eventually get an Obama memorial...

by Eric on Sep 2, 2013 10:50 am • linkreport

I think the common element is that war hero presidents get a monument.

Of 38 dead presidents, 10 have memorials in DC. Of them Jefferson wasn't a war hero. Nor was Buchanan. Nor was LBJ.

Garfield is a stretch (and is memorialized more for being assassinated). So is T. Roosevelt.

So only half (Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Grant, FDR) are really war heroes. But that's probably true of our presidents too.

by David C on Sep 2, 2013 9:42 pm • linkreport

Obama just nominated Bruce Cole to serve on the federal commission that oversees the project. He feels the design would be a "monumental farce" and "a cross between an amusement park and a golf course." I think Eisenhower liked to golf!

by Thayer-D on Sep 4, 2013 4:40 am • linkreport

The park is pretty shabby, but please, not another grandiose memorial to a president. It feels like idolatry.

And what's the point? West Potomac Park is beginning to feel like a Memorial Theme Park. Raise the money, get Congressional approval, hire a famous architect and you've got yourself a memorial.

But what about bathrooms? Water fountains? Security? Where will the buses park? Sadly, the infrastructure and services needed to support the current number of visitors to the mall is already severely stretched.

If only the Congressional committee for the Ike memorial could see the bigger picture. But that't not their job.

by JoanneP on Sep 7, 2013 2:42 am • linkreport

Still terrible, and not much difference from the original design. Can't understand how some Times Square-style billboards get passed off as a memorial these days. Maybe McDonald's can buy some ad space on the flip side of one of these billboards...I mean "tapestries."

by Burd on Sep 16, 2013 1:30 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