Jefferson Memorial next to get security wall

Public Spaces

Jefferson Memorial next to get security wall

by David Alpert • October 7, 2010 11:06 am

An NCPC staff report on a security perimeter at the Jefferson Memorial contains a fascinating before and after photo set of the area:

The Jefferson Memorial in 1949 (top) and today (bottom). Images from NCPC.

For the security perimeter itself, NPS is considering three options: A fence right along the roadway, which is the NCPC staff's and CFA's preferred choice, a meandering wall along the middle of the Memorial grounds, and a formal circular wall making another concentric ring outside the memorial.

Images from NCPC.

The street option has the least visual intrusion, since it's along an existing street, and avoids cutting up the landscaped space. Unfortunately, it also requires removing the most trees. (I'm sure security experts can explain why a barrier has to involve cutting down trees, instead of just running alongside or incorporating the already-strong trees into the barrier.)

Images from NCPC.

All options would incorporate some benches into the wall, including around the tour bus loading area and new handicapped parking along the roadway to the west of the entrance. A food kiosk would also be reloacted to that area. NCPC staff suggests incorporating some of the more informal seating designs of the meandering wall or circular wall into the street fence option.

The National Coalition to Save Our Mall also submitted comments asking NPS to add some short-term parking at the Jefferson Memorial. It's hard to get there except by bike or long walk, and the Coalition says, "We have heard from many people over the past 7 years that they no longer visit the memorial because access is so limited to this remote location which lacks any public transportation. The only parking on Ohio Drive is a considerable walk."

The most important solution to this problem is for NPS to allow Circulator buses to run on the Mall and connect memorials cheaply and conveniently. The Circulator could also stop at the existing parking lots.

21 comments

Tags: Circulator, Jefferson Memorial, NPS, parking, security, The Mall, traffic

Park Police overprotect on Earth Day (May 10, 2010)
Park Service might allow real transit on the Mall (Mar 17, 2010)
Vietnam Visitors Center: How do you make a building invisible? (Jun 1, 2009)
Where should the Latino museum go? (Jul 16, 2010)
GSA considering ground-floor retail (Jun 30, 2010)

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 »

Can someone, preferably from NCPC or NPS, explain to me just *WHY* the Jefferson Memorial even needs a "security perimeter"?

by Froggie on Oct 7, 2010 11:12 am • link • report

The report explains that in 2001, NPS determined that it needed to put up security perimeters around key monuments to protect them from terrorist attacks using vehicles carrying explosives.

Even if you accept this is legitimate, which I personally don't, it's pretty clear that they could prevent a vehicle accessing the monument by planting some more trees, or by a landscaping feature instead of a wall. Even if it's a pretty wall, it's not great symbolism.

by renegade09 on Oct 7, 2010 11:22 am • link • report

Wouldn't it be great if they also added an in-fill station along the Yellow Line at the Jefferson Memorial?

Sure, it would only be used by people getting to monuments, but so what?

by George on Oct 7, 2010 11:29 am • link • report

@Froggie

Because if we don't build up lots of security fences around public buildings and live in constant fear of an attack... then the terrorists have won.

Or is that the other way around?

by Teyo on Oct 7, 2010 11:31 am • link • report

Yeah, it's a shame they've closed down the parking lot and effectively made the memorial inaccessible to all but a few. It does sound like the terrorists have won in this case.

by Lance on Oct 7, 2010 11:33 am • link • report

Froggie +1
Why are walls needed next to a Monument?
Should the Mall be an inviting open environment?
Is anybody seriously threatening Jefferson? Can you threaten a (monument for a) person who has died 184 years ago and who is buried half a ~~state~~ commonwealth away?

by Jasper on Oct 7, 2010 11:35 am • link • report

Wouldn't it be great if they also added an in-fill station along the Yellow Line at the Jefferson Memorial?

Sure, it would only be used by people getting to monuments, but so what?

Actually it would also be pretty handy for getting to the various East Potomac Park recreational facilities along Ohio Drive, which currently are kind of a hassle to get to for non-drivers because of the way the 14th Street Bridge roadways and ramps dominate the scene there. (Even getting up to the Case Bridge walkway from the Maine Avenue waterfront area so you can cross the channel to the park is kind of frustrating.)

by pagodat on Oct 7, 2010 11:37 am • link • report

@pagodat

Maybe the Navy's building one for us :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13265-2004Nov25.html

by Teyo on Oct 7, 2010 11:39 am • link • report

This is a perfect opportunity to actually ask for NPS to provide real bike facilities that are separate from the sidewalks. This is a prime bicycle commuting route and conflicts between walkers and bicyclists are common. Why not incorporate a dedicated cycle-track that would help connect downtown with Virginia?

by Rob Mandle on Oct 7, 2010 11:50 am • link • report

What's conspicuously absent from the NCPC report is that many, if not most, of these trees NPS wants to chop down are cherry trees. That's a very important detail and I'm not sure why NCPC didn't comment on that fact at all. One of my favorite trees that I photograph at each year's Cherry Blossom Festival is set to be sacrificed on the high altar of security:

(This tree stands at the very western end of the recommended barrier)

I'm normally not a big tree-hugger, but these trees aren't just any trees; these trees are among the many that together attract tourists from as far away as Japan to the annual Cherry Blossom Festival. Despite this, NCPC "[c]omments favorably on the barrier location".

by Eric Fidler on Oct 7, 2010 11:53 am • link • report

It is worth noting that many of the security concerns about the monuments were raised well before 9/11. Some of the temporary barriers were already in place around the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument by the time the evil doers attacked. Bigger walls and fences are always the answer, after all.

by aaa on Oct 7, 2010 11:54 am • link • report

I guess the cherry blossom festival organizers haven't heard about this yet or they would be up in arms. Seriously, I don't understand why the trees have to go. I guess a bulldozer needs turning space?

by DC Home Inspector on Oct 7, 2010 12:14 pm • link • report

Does anyone at the NPS or NCPC see the irony of putting up a security perimeter around a monument dedicated to a champion of freedom?

At any rate, I agree with the other posters here. Natural barriers like trees and perhaps massive rocks should dissuade the terrorist with a bomb in their backpack. Er, I mean car.

by OX4 on Oct 7, 2010 12:28 pm • link • report

The Jefferson Memorial does have a small museum space that rarely gets visited. In it, there are displays that tell the story of the building of the memorial itself, which happened in the 30s and 40s. The cherry trees were planted at the beginning of the 20th century. So, when the memorial was proposed, there were many people up in arms about the cherry trees that had to be chopped down to make room for it. Some actually chained themselves to the trees in an effort to prevent their removal.

Life goes on.

That being said, I agree with others who decry, bemoan and generally disapprove of more resources sacrificed on the "security" altar. If it was me, I'd reopen the parking lot for goodness sake. Maybe you remove the spaces nearest the memorial and erect bollards or some such to prevent the truck bombers from getting too close. But it's a risk I think most of the public is willing to take in exchange for greater convenience, greater accessibility options, and just generally to feel like we maintain control over our society.

by Josh S on Oct 7, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report

Yes, indeed, why is there not a "no build" option on the table? Complete with a real analysis of security threats, not just arm-waving, scare-mongering and NPS me-too-ism. Just about every public infrastructure project I've been involved with includes a "no build" option.

by Paul on Oct 7, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report

I don't bother to host tours of the memorials and monuments anymore to out of town visitors. All of our visitors notice and remark on these concrete walls/barriers and how they detract from the beauty of Washington. The NPS and NCPC have craeted hidous security barriers to protect us from ourselves. Has anyone been to London or Paris recently? The NPC and NCPC should take a trip across "the pond" to see how they deal with security in a much more astetic and accessible way.

by peter on Oct 7, 2010 2:03 pm • link • report

I also think the idea of putting in a security barrier is unnecessary. Why not spend that money fixing up other parts of the mall? The area around the pool at the end of the Mall near congress is a disgrace. I'm embarassed when I see tourists walking around there kicking loose bits of pavement.

However if a barrier is put in, I like option 3: the formal feature.

by Dan on Oct 7, 2010 2:30 pm • link • report

How about a moat instead? Not one with hot oil and pulled up drawbridges, but enough of a water barrier that a car isn't getting past.

by ah on Oct 7, 2010 2:45 pm • link • report

Most security around federal buildings and landmarks is a fig leaf. Anything that's done will be a waste of money. It was better, when it was possible to drive up to the monument day or night.

by Rich on Oct 7, 2010 4:26 pm • link • report

So let me get this straight. We have:

Historically and touristically important trees.

Which serve as natural, beautiful barriers.

Which stand in front of a memorial to a man obsessed with personal liberty, populist revolution, and a government weak & vulnerable enough to be forced to serve the people.

And we are contemplating not only making that uninhabited marble monument nearly inaccessible to tourists, not only erecting walls around a symbol of openness, but actually cutting down the trees to build the artificial barriers which protect all that marble from someone willing to blow themselves up to destroy it.

Are these people even serious? Or is the Security Theatre getting its stage direction from Zero Mostel, a bureaucrat trying to get fired to collect his severance check?

by Squalish on Oct 7, 2010 6:11 pm • link • report

I'm thinking of the old government contractor saying, "why build one [low impact landscaping-based barrier] when you can build two [masonry walls] for twice the cost?"

by Ed Chapman on Oct 8, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report