Home  •   Search  •   Newsletter/Archive  •   Contact Us   

July 21, 2005

The decision of how to secure the east front of the Lincoln Memorial without destroying its symbolism is not going to be easily resolved, as the discussion and disagreement today illustrates. The latest design for bollards and/or other security devices at the base of the steps, near the Reflecting Pool, instead of in plain view at plaza level, is an improvement. Ms. Balmori’s request to see a design that complements the linear quality of the Memorial and the Mall’s long axis deserves further study. Mr. Belle’s suggestion that instead of a line of identical bollards, NPS should consider combining different sizes or designs so as to break up the effect is an interesting one. A truck or other vehicle would have to approach the steps from the sides of the Reflecting Pool, so as a practical matter it could be that the strongest elements are needed only at the sides.

It is difficult, now three years into considering various approaches and designs, to remember the earlier concepts so as to compare them with the design shown today. The visual material provided is simply not sufficient to allow intelligent comparisons and conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that in any future design review, NPS be directed to bring drawings, sections, and plans of all the other concepts and designs that have been proposed since 2002.

The CFA may not be aware that GAO issued a new report just weeks ago, in late June, about National Mall security. The report finds there are various approaches by the different agencies that have jurisdiction on the Mall. It recommends that successful planning requires consultation early and often. The Smithsonian’s security planning, following that principle, has proceeded relatively smoothly. The Park Service’s has been more complicated and controversial. The Lincoln Memorial project is a case in point.

Finally, the long delay in finding a security solution at the Lincoln Memorial may be a good thing. The current approach is based on the Oklahoma City bombing of a decade ago. The Park Service was directed to protect the icons and that is what they are trying to do. But now we have a new director of Homeland Security and a new approach. Michael Chertoff has stated that he intends to undertake a risk assessment that prioritizes security needs. He has talked specifically about the loss of human lives as a priority. This means that there is a good likelihood that in coming months the government will have new security priorities that put the icons, where loss of life would be low, as lower priority. We should not rush ahead with securing the monuments if very soon this approach could be obsolete and contrary to official Homeland Security policy. Therefore, the Coalition would ask that CFA enter into dialogue with Homeland Security. Send them minutes of this and other meetings where questions of security vs. openness and symbolism are debated. Take the initiative now, before final decisions are made, to understand what the future holds in terms of security policies and how they should be applied, or not applied, at our icons.

Judy Scott Feldman, Ph.D.
Chairman
National Coalition to Save Our Mall
301-340-3938

Back to the top

Copyright © 2008 National Coalition to Save Our Mall Inc. All Rights Reserved