US President Donald Trump’s proposal to build a 250ft-tall arch on Memorial Circle in Washington, DC, was approved by a the US Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) on Thursday (21 May) in a vote that leapfrogged the usual review process and largely disregarded the public comments, which were “99.5%” in opposition to the project, according to a staff report. While the arch’s design still lacks some key details, including additional sculptures and reliefs to fill its niches, the CFA’s chairman, Rodney Mims Cook, Jr, put forward a motion for final approval, which was passed by the four present commissioners. (National Endowment for the Arts chair Mary Anne Carter, who attended the first portion of the meeting, did not return after a break was called before the vote.)
During the CFA’s previous review of the conceptual designs for the arch, panel members recommended excluding gold statuary from the top of the arch to reduce its overall height from 250ft to 166ft. But Trump rejected this suggestion, “while respectfully noting the differences of aesthetic opinion that may exist on the subject”, according to Nicolas Charbonneau, a principal at Harrison Design, the architects working on the project.
“The intent of the arch is a celebration in America of 250 years of greatest freedom and posterity, for which we can only thank the wisdom of our founders and God’s providence,” Charbonneau added. “While it may celebrate the victories of America in various theories of war and the sacrifice of our fallen heroes, it is not primarily a monument dedicated to the dead, but to the living, to this free country, and its perseverance.” (Memorial Circle is located near the main entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, the country’s most important military cemetery.)
The design discussed on Thursday eliminates an eight-foot platform on which the arch was previously shown standing as well as a collection of gold lions on plinths surrounding it. It also does away with a proposed tunnel that visitors would use to reach the arch, instead relying on traffic lights and pedestrian walkways across the busy traffic circle. Most of the CFA panellists seemed satisfied with these changes and to have forgotten their previous reservations about the arch’s size, insisting that the main structure was actually 166ft high.
Carter was the sole panellist suggesting any further reduction in the arch’s decorative elements, drawing a comparison to the simplicity of the white stone markers at soldiers’ graves in Arlington Cemetery, where both her parents are buried. Memorial Circle “is between what was a historical part of this country and on one side really is hallowed ground”, she told the architects, “so I appreciate what you’ve done, and as you continue moving forward, just keep in mind how simple those gravestones are to the south”.
The arch could ultimately be even more heavily decorated than the current designs show, since its currently blank wall surfaces are intended to feature a series of “narrative sculptures”, Charbonneau said during his presentation of the updated design. When asked if work was already underway or when further details would be ready, the architect said: “I can’t give you an exact date, but the administration is working on developing a scheme.”
The most recent rendering of the Triumphal Arch, seen in situ from Memorial Bridge Courtesy Harrison Design
The hearing was then opened to public comments, which included statements from representatives of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the DC Preservation League and the Cultural Landscape Foundation, as well as Washington residents.
“I’m here this morning because I am horrified by the speed with which the Triumphal Arch project is moving through the approval process,” said Susan Douglas. She outlined the public and legal objections to the project, including the fact that Congressional approval is not being sought, Trump’s own admission that the arch is being built for “him”, the lawsuits brought against it by veterans groups, the structural issues of building on a manmade island composed mainly of landfill dredged from the Potomac River and the necessary Federal Aviation Administration review since the structure would stand in the flight paths to and from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
“There are myriad reasons for not allowing the construction of the ‘Arc de Trump’ to move forward,” Douglas said “Democracies do not build memorials to living presidents. Building this gaudy arch in a location that will overpower everything in its midst and interrupt the historically significant view between Lincoln Memorial and the Arlington National Cemetery is an affront to our history and to the men and women at Arlington National Cemetery who gave their lives in service to our country as well as to those who remember them. It is in fact arch insanity.”
Gary Langston, a veteran, spoke next and shared photos of the view across Memorial Bridge towards Arlington Cemetery that he took during a recent visit to the Lincoln Memorial with his son.
“One of the more breathtaking views is from the DC side looking across to Arlington House,” Langston said, adding that the commission should consider how this would be affected, especially at night if the arch is fully lit. “I seriously question the underlying purpose of the arch, which is a monument, as opposed to a memorial,” he added. “Those are hallowed grounds there. Anything that doesn’t respect that, anything that doesn’t help bring unity to the country, is in conflict with what I believe is the original intent.”
After several more members of the public spoke, Cook considered ending any further comments. Carter noted “a lot of the stuff that they’re talking about, we’re actually not the venue”, although she added: “I appreciate everyone talking. I appreciate everyone’s concerns. That’s what America’s about.”
One final speaker was allowed to take the microphone, John Ayers, a fourth-generation DC resident, who noted that since Memorial Bridge serves as the ceremonial entrance to Arlington Cemetery, serious thought should be put into anything on this route. He quoted a document issued in 1902 by the McMillan Commission, the group behind Washington’s urban design, which included the architects Daniel Burnham and Charles F. McKim, the landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted Jr and the sculptor Augustus Saint Gaudens.
“A cemetery, they wrote, should be ‘a place to which one should go with a sentiment of respect and peace, as into a church or sacred place’,” Ayers said. “I have no objection to a monument for the living, I just don’t think it belongs here on our way to the cemetery.”
Cook then suggested the public’s opposition to the arch was due to a lack of understand about the history of such triumphal arches and said a document would be posted on the CFA’s website providing other historic examples.
The CFA’s vice chair, James McCrery, the original architect of Trump’s ballroom proposal to replace the White House’s demolished East Wing, suggested that people arguing that the arch’s design is too large “need to understand that if you make it smaller, it will block the view, and its current size, it doesn’t”. Rather, he argued, the arch in the current proposal will create a frame through which to view the capital’s landmarks. He added that the CFA is meant “to work with designs that are presented to us, to work on them as a forge, to make them better, to make them more appropriate, to make them more beautiful”.
After a brief break called by Cook due to a family emergency, the commission reconvened (sans Carter) and voted to approve the design, noting that they looked forward to seeing the additional sculptural components in the future. The arch will next go under review by the National Capital Planning Commission, which is also staffed largely by Trump appointees and loyalists, on 4 June.
