August 3, 2006
Comments by the National Coalition to Save Our Mall
on
Site Selection and Design Guidelines for the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center
before the National Capital Planning Commission
Good afternoon. I am Judy Scott Feldman, chair of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall. Kent Cooper and I will share our five-minute testimony on behalf of the Coalition.
This project, like many recent projects proposed for the Mall, has become embroiled in politics that could cripple permanently the review process. The Coalition asks Commissioners to take the opportunity today to acknowledge that something is seriously wrong with the memorial and museum process, that the integrity of our National Mall is threatened as never before, and that we all need to do something about it.
I have two points. First, the FONSI is deceptively attractive in laying out guidelines to mitigate the Visitor Center’s adverse effects but it is based on a questionable premise–that these guidelines will be adopted and followed by the National Park Service and the sponsor when in fact no assurance is provided that this will happen. Without it, the guidelines are meaningless and unenforceable. The Coalition understands that NCPC staff has been working to make the best of the situation--the House has passed legislation mandating Site A and the Senate seems poised to do the same. But Commissioners should not accept the staff recommendation until the park service and sponsor have formally accepted the guidelines.
Second, for over a year the Coalition has voiced concern that the National Mall is given short-shrift in documents evaluating the project’s potential impacts. Our comments, including those we submitted on the EA in June, have not been taken seriously enough to warrant a response from the park service. Nor are they addressed in NCPC’s FONSI or design guidelines. It is a historic preservation question. How does the Visitor Center fit within the Mall’s historic concept as a symbol, in landscape and architecture, of American founding principles and national identity–a concept that originated in the L’Enfant Plan and was reinforced by the McMillan Plan? Is the Vietnam War so fundamental a concept in American history as to require yet further interpretation on the Mall–in addition to the original iconic Wall, the flag and Three Servicemen, and the Women’s Memorial? If the Mall’s symbolic integrity is to be protected, then this impact needs to be understood and evaluated before it can be mitigated–another reason to defer approval of the FONSI and guidelines.
In conclusion, when the National Mall and politics collide, too often the Mall loses and yet another politically mandated memorial or museum crowds its way onto the open space. We are all powerless–government agencies and public alike–when the administrative and public review process is circumvented—whether by Congress mandating a site without NCPC review or the Secretary of Interior removing from consideration the two off-Mall sites that were preferred by the Coalition and others. We hope this tragedy opens the door to a comprehensive evaluation and strengthening of the memorial and museum review process.
TESTIMONY OF W. KENT COOPER FAIA: Good afternoon Mr Chairman, and members of the Commission. My Name is Kent Cooper. My firm was Architect of Record for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and Architect of the Korean War Veterans Memorial.
It is clear that in the Environmental Assessment for this project there has been a conscious attempt to draw up a comprehensive, air-tight, set of Design Guidelines which will protect the integrity of the site in so far as it is possible to do so.
As I read over the 15 items I noticed several areas where the guidelines do not yet seem to cover potentially serious issues. Therefore I am speaking today.
1. The fact that the new Center will occupy the site together with the new NPS Concession building, which will also generate considerable pedestrian traffic, is not mentioned. Item 10 states that there will be no significant adverse effect on existing traffic patterns and levels of service.
a. Will a single pedestrian crossing of Henry Bacon Drive be established for the two facilities? If not what is proposed? Will this be a controlled crossing?
b. Where will the rows of tour buses be parked? Will these two new facilities generate enough loading traffic to require Henry Bacon Drive to be closed as a public thoroughfare, as was Daniel Chester French Drive which has become a parking lot.
I believe that an answer to these questions should be received and mitigation agreed upon before authorization to proceed is given.
2. Item 11 in the guidelines refers to protecting the mature trees which border the site. In his July testimony, Mr Polschek referred to protecting the root balls of the Elms. Common practice is to confine deep excavation to outside the drip line of mature trees. Also since the water table in the site will be lowered significantly during and probably after construction, a controlled irrigation program will be necessary to protect the trees. These issues should also be addressed.
3. Items 9 and 13 State that the single entrance insures that there will be no impairment of recreational use. Item 15 acknowledges that ball fields will need to be moved. Will any multi-use recreation be left on site except perhaps picnicking near the concession building (if that is permitted by NPS regulations)
4. Item 3 states that the design concept will be based on maintaining the existing grade- except as required for the handicapped entrance ramp. Could someone explain why an entrance ramp to a fully underground building requires raising the existing grade?
Let me conclude by expressing appreciation to the staffs of NCPC and CFA for the laborious work they have done in attempting to mitigate the impact of this difficult project on this sensitive site.
Back to the top
| 
