Since 2006 when site selection began, the Coalition has supported creation of the Eisenhower Memorial. We hoped that choice of this location would be an opportunity to realize Maryland Avenue as the 160-foot-wide avenue called for in Washington’s historic L’Enfant and McMillan plans. The fact that the National Park Service is partner with the Eisenhower Foundation gave us hope that the designers would follow the protections of the historic plans outlined in the Commemorative Works Act.
The Coalition has reiterated since 2006 our point that whatever design is selected must respect the historic plans, which conceived of Maryland Avenue as the mirror image of Pennsylvania Avenue to the north of the Mall. [See Illustration 1 that shows the plans and avenue relationships]
This design does not respect the historic concept. See my letters on behalf of the Coalition in the New York Times an
d the Washington Post. [See Illustration 2]
I will now focus my comments on the Commemorative Works Act.
- Congress passed the CWA to guide site selection and design of memorials in the nation’s capital. [See Illustration 3 that includes highlighted relevant sections of the Act] The Act was created to “preserve the integrity” of the L’Enfant and McMillan plans – which called for a 160-foot avenue, not 50 feet, not 90. During a public consultation meeting in 2012, DC Historic Preservation Officer David Maloney stated that the historic resource is not the vista (on which so much comment has rightfully been focused) but Maryland Avenue. To protect the Maryland Avenue concept the colossal columns and other elements that interfere should be removed.
- The CWA states that “to the maximum extent possible, a commemorative work shall be located in surroundings that are relevant to the subject of the work.” This site was selected precisely because it was surrounded by agencies established under President Eisenhower – FAA, Department of Education, and so on. But that context has been ignored by the designers, and the design turns its back on those buildings. For a concept that now stresses the President and General, and Kansas boy, a better site might be at the World War II Memorial not far from the White House – using the “contemplative area” of that Memorial that is unused.
- The CWA says the purpose is “to preserve, protect and maintain the limited amount of open space.” But this design fills the entire 4-acre space. If the past it any guide, the National Park Service will restrict public use in what will be considered “sacred space” of the memorial enclosure. That’s what happened at the FDR Memorial. You can walk and enjoy, but you can’t play in the water or run around there. FDR is not an urban park; it’s a memorial park with rules and regulations. The Eisenhower concept would likely be the same – not an urban park at all, but a controlled space – that does not protect the open space.
- I asked my Board member architect Arthur Cotton Moore to sketch how a memorial might work on this site. I attach here a quick concept of how Maryland Avenue could be realized while the Memorial fits within the space. [See Illustrations 3 and 4]
A memorial is an idea. A work of art. But there is no unity of design or meaning here. How can the concept be both an “open room” and “temple” and an “urban park”? What are we supposed to take away from it, about Eisenhower and his legacy for the nation? Presidential monuments in Washington DC are about more than an individual; they are about ideas and national themes: Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, Washington and the founding of the nation, Lincoln and the preservation of the Union. There is no bigger story in this concept. It’s time to start over.
Tags: Eisenhower Memorial
