Triumphal Arch Final Design Approved by U.S. Commission of Fine Arts

To understand how radically the role of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) has changed since the administration’s appointment of the current slate of commissioners, one need only look at their unanimous vote on May 21 to approve the final design for the proposed 250-foot-tall Triumphal Arch near Arlington National Cemetery without seeing a final design (only four of the seven commissioners voted; barely a quorum).

At the meeting’s outset, CFA Secretary Thomas Luebke announced that 600 comments had been received; one was fully supportive of the design, two were somewhat less so, and 99.5 percent were opposed.

Just one month earlier the commissioners reviewed the project, which would be one of the most consequential additions to the Monumental Core, for the first time. At that meeting Sec. Luebke announced that 1,000 comments had been received; with 99 percent opposed. This past April the commissioners discussed the 166-foot-tall granite structure, which is surmounted by statuary, the largest of which added 84 feet to the overall height. CFA Vice Chair James McCrery, the original architect of the White House ballroom, offered critiques including of the massing of the granite arch, suggesting it be more porous, and called for removing the statuary, as the CFA's records note, because “the project would appear more compatible with Washington’s monumental context without these elements.”

Image

So, it was a surprise when the revised concept plans submitted to the commission in advance of the most recent meeting ignored almost all of McCrery’s suggestions; the president, it was announced last Thursday, had vetoed them. The project’s lead architect, Nicolas Leo Charbonneau, who briefly worked for McCrery, according to The New York Times, said the arch was dedicated to the living and not the dead, adding that the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials across the Potomac River have a “strong funerary character.”

The only plea for moderation came from Commissioner Mary Anne Carter, who is also the current Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts. Carter called for simplicity in the design and pointed to the simplicity and solemnity of the white gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. When it came time for the vote on the final design, Carter was absent.

Representatives from The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF), the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the D.C. Preservation League all provided testimony in opposition. TCLF’s testimony was derived from the article "A Slap in the Face to the Lincoln Memorial," which chronicled the early twentieth-century development of the National Mall and Monumental Core, with a focus on the work and outsized influence of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. The arch’s proponents claimed numerous previous designs for Memorial Bridge, which opened in 1934 and connects the Lincoln Memorial across the Potomac River to Arlington, VA, included triumphal arches and similar structures. In 1916 Olmsted, Jr., wrote that all of those designs were created before the Lincoln Memorial was conceived. To introduce them now would be “a slap in the face to the Lincoln Memorial.” In addition, a statuary ensemble for Memorial Bridge, authorized by Congress, was entirely removed by the CFA.

Memorial Bridge is a symbolic post-Civil War link uniting the North and the South, providing a direct connection between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House, the former home of Robert E. Lee, which overlooks Arlington National Cemetery. The arch disrupts that critical visual relationship, creating a barrier between the two.

Image

On June 4 the project will come before the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which is also stocked with administration appointees, where it is expected to be approved. Regarding Congressional approval, Arch proponents claim this is unnecessary, saying prior Congressional authorization for Memorial Bridge that took place a century earlier obviates this need, an assertion that has been widely criticized.

What could affect the design is a Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act, which would identify adverse effects to the National Register of Historic Places-designated sites in the Monumental Core and how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those adverse effects. Those reviews have yet to be initiated.