DC Triumphal Arch — What You Need to Know Before June 15

The public comment window on the proposed 250-foot Triumphal Arch in Washington DC closes June 15. I sat down with Priya Jain, Chair of the Heritage Conservation Committee for the Society of Architectural Historians, to talk about what this proposal actually involves, why it threatens one of the most historically significant viewsheds in the country, and why your comment matters even when it feels like the decision is already made.

Submit your comment before June 15 at parkplanning.nps.gov

Follow the journey. 🌲

Transcript

Missy Rentz 0:01

I am so excited to welcome Priya Jain to The Parks Podcast. Priya is the chair of the Heritage Conservation Committee for the Society of Architectural Historians. Priya, welcome to The Parks Podcast

Priya Jain 0:16

Thank you, Missy, for having me

Missy Rentz 0:17

Priya, you are so kind to very quickly jump on because we have an urgent issue that is taking place this week, around our parks, and that's the Triumphal Arch. And so for people who haven't heard about this, can you say exactly what is being proposed and where this arch will go?

Priya Jain 0:36

Absolutely. So, As people might know uh, this arch is being proposed in Washington, DC. It is part of a national park system, so the land is owned by the National Park system and administered by them. It's part of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. And within that there is the Memorial Avenue Bridge. So this arch is being proposed on the Arlington side of it, but it's still within Washington, DC. And this entire kind of area stems from the planning for Washington, DC from the turn of the century. This vision for Washington, DC has existed since its founding in the early 1800s, and comes from the design of this French architect, and planner, who laid out this very axial plan for the city with the viewpoints and these important monuments and buildings. But in 1901, a bunch of very kind of important architects and landscape architects like Frederick Law Olmsted, who designed Central Park in New York; Daniel Burnham, this famous kind of Chicago architect; McKim, Mead, and White. These really the most-- the top of their game kind of architects and landscape architects got together and said we want to create the National Mall in Washington, DC. Site Lincoln Memorial. Build this bridge that connects it to Arlington House on the other side of the Potomac River." So all of this area kind of-- the history of this area is super rich, and it stems from that time period, and it is all very strategic in design

Missy Rentz 2:05

And just so for people to understand, Arlington House is in

Priya Jain 2:08

Our lady

Missy Rentz 2:09

National Cemetery. And so when you're in Washington, if you're standing in Arlington National Cemetery, you have a straight view across the Memorial Bridge, to the Lincoln Memorial, and it's... I actually got chills as I'm talking about it. It's a, it's this kind of sacred, very special place that they're proposing it.

Priya Jain 2:30

Absolutely. So this new arch that is being proposed is right in the center of this long vista, and this vista had reciprocal views. So y- if you were in Lincoln Memorial, you could look across the bridge to Arlington House, and if you're in Arlington House, standing there, you have a clear view back to Lincoln Memorial. And this was, if you look back at the historical documents, this is not happenstance. This was designed. This was meant to be a reconciliation between the North and the South. So to link the Lincoln Memorial, you know, representing the North, and Arlington House, the once the home of Robert Lee, it was this kind of strategic way to say we, our country has moved past that. We want to build this monument to reconciliation. So the bridge itself was designed as this monument to the past but also the future.

Missy Rentz 3:24

And you're a scholar. You study this.

Priya Jain 3:26

Absolutely. Absolutely, yeah. We're architectural historians, so that is exactly what we do. We not just write about architecture, but we dig into historical documents and archival documents to figure out what were they thinking about at the time? And there are lots of historians who've written about the history of Washington, D.C., and particularly this moment in time, and they have documented how the development of this entire area came about. And what is also interesting to know, that it is not just, people writing about that time in history. Since, a century has passed since that time. We're in 2026 now. In this entire past century, the National Park Service itself has recognized the importance of this area, so in all of their future kind of planning documents, as they're thinking about adding new highways, roads, making changes, making the area safe, and, all of those things, they have repeatedly reinforced the importance of maintaining this axial viewpoint between the monuments. And I would also like to say that it is not just like an academic thing, but I want people to recognize that, our important historic places, a lot of work goes into making them look the way they do, and that work involves this important task of preserving, taking the time to study these things and to make sure that whatever new stuff we're putting in is not going to harm these character-defining features. Because if you don't have this, you could, yes, somebody could, knock down the White House, the US Capitol, or build something, in place of it. There's noth- nothing stopping any of that unless and until we respect these historic preservation guidelines and procedures, and our parks are an important part of that.

Missy Rentz 5:10

And there has been additions to the mall. They've just gone through a proper process where they have had the opportunity to have review and be integrated in a way that maintains the character and the historical significance of the space

Priya Jain 5:29

Absolutely. Absolutely. I think, I do not think preservation is about stopping any kind of new development or change. In fact, as you pointed out, throughout this past century, there has been so much that has been built on the Mall, in this area. In fact, the entire Arlington Memorial Bridge was recently rebuilt and refurbished because, yeah, there had been a century of using it. It had gone through decay and deterioration. But there are very clear guidelines that the federal government themselves have laid out, the Park Service, for doing these types of projects. Now, even in this case, something that we at the Society of Architectural Historians have urged the government to do is to look at alternate monument designs that are not just this one arch, right? So there are multiple ways this could be redesigned. For example, the 1920s, there was a proposal in the 1920s as part of the McMillan Plan, which proposed a monument in this general area. It was not in the current location, so it was not in the center of Memorial Circle, but rather it was to the side of the bridge, and there were two slender columns, one symbolizing the North and one symbolizing the South, each 166 feet tall, foot tall, that were proposed for this area. And if you look at the news reporting or the way they talked about this design in the 1920s, they constantly mentioned how this d- design came about as a way to frame the views to the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House and not to interfere with it. So we're really urging the government to look back at this rich history of precedence that we have and pick something that is appropriate for this location rather than a massive 250-foot connected arch that completely blocks the important views, reciprocal views between these monuments.

Missy Rentz 7:22

So what are, maybe the top concerns about this proposal specifically?

Priya Jain 7:28

It is the fact that it does not respect the history of the site or the guidelines that have been laid out by the government. As recent as 2024, a cultural landscape report was a, which is a very common type of planning document that guides future development of all our national park systems, was done for this area, for the Memorial Avenue corridor, and it said clearly that no permanent monument should be placed within Memorial Circle. So this proposal flies in the face of all kind of preservation and historical guidance for this area. So personally, I would say that the government should really think about what is even the need for this monument. This really does not fulfill any public safety requirement. It is a proposal that comes out of an executive order that talks about, broadly about beautification of Washington, D.C. But we think that in doing so, it is harming existing, very significant historical monuments and the views between them. And the viewsheds are an important part of how we experience and appreciate our national parks. So yeah. I think these are extremely important character-defining features. So that is the major concern. And, we are asking for the government to really rethink if this project is even necessary, and B, if they think that a monument in this location is warranted and really needed, then look for alternate options that mitigate these harmful impacts that are being caused by the current proposal.

Missy Rentz 9:01

You wrote a beautiful letter that is on the Society for Architectural Historians website, and I will link to it in all of the episode notes and on our socials 'cause I think it's important for people to have the information. And you focus on the architectural side of things, and there's two other areas that I've read about, and I wonder if this is factored in at all in your decision. One is cost, and then the other that I've read about is is safety from an aviation perspective. National Airport is right there, and not an easy runway to land on from what I understand, and this could impede air traffic

Priya Jain 9:38

Absolutely. There are-- apart from the historical and aesthetic effects that you mentioned, there are serious logistical problems with this plan that goes to show that, it hasn't been seriously thought of. It hasn't... The ti- amount of time and deliberation that would typically go in projects of this scale and size seems to not have happened here. You're absolutely right. This is very close to an international airport. There are laws that govern the height of buildings. Apart from that, Washington DC has its own law that restricts the heights of buildings because they want to maintain the horizontal character of Washington DC, and they have done that on all the previous projects. So the National Capital Planning Commission, which is an agency that has oversight over this project, in all the projects in the past that they have reviewed, they have typically adhered to this law and regulation and judged all the proposals in light of it. In the case of this project, the chair of the NCPC, who's an appointee of the current administration has given an opinion that he thinks that the Height of Buildings Act does not apply to this project. That is very unprecedented and atypical. We're really just asking the government to follow its own rules that have been followed on all the other projects across the nation's capital.

Missy Rentz 10:59

And I just wanna say NCPC is the National Capital Planning Commission, and just so everybody knows who that is. And you, in your article, go into that about, the items that they're bringing up, the examples that they're bringing up are not fair comparisons. Because what they're bringing up are things that were proposed not in that area, but also were declined because of some of these rules and laws and precedent that's in place.

Priya Jain 11:25

Absolutely. Our preservation, the way we plan our national parks in the country recognizes, like I said, that, there will be new developments that will be needed from time to time. But we have a process in place, one of which is Section 106, which comes out of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that allows the public to be able to give input, and it also allows a number of, consulting parties, cultural organizations the state historic preservation officers and others to weigh in. Now, in this case, there is currently an active comment period, but the government only provided the public 10 days to comment on this project, which has very significant adverse impacts. There is a huge amount of information that, people have to consume to be able to figure out, the impact this project is causing. And typically, a project like this would have anywhere from 30 to 45 days at least for the public to comment. Now, in this case, we're only being given 10 days. The consulting parties, which is this group of organizations and people that should have been involved in consultations, that has not happened. People have applied to be part of that process, and they've still not been granted that status. For example, the National Historic National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is a nationwide advocacy group for doing just these kinds of Section 106 consultations. So yes. And the public has until Monday on June 15th the end of the day Mountain Time, to submit their comments. And I think we encourage people to take an active role because as yes, these are our public, these are public parks. These are our kind of places for us to enjoy and to pass on to future generations, and we can do that only if we are mindful and strategic about the way we develop them and we add new things to them. So we encourage people to take this opportunity, however short, to make their voices heard and to provide comment to the federal government.

Missy Rentz 13:26

And I did a post maybe three days ago when I found out about this, and I did a step-by-step 'cause the other thing is it's hidden. It's buried where the comments are. And so it- there's a lot of reason for people to just abandon ship and not make the comments. And so check out that post. I'll maybe repost it and do some more about it over the weekend so that people can see exactly where, and I'll put the direct link to where you comment in this 'cause that is important. Let me ask you one thing. Is this a one-off or like other, some of the other park things are, should we be aware and concerned about things like this and a- the architectural historical significance being threatened?

Priya Jain 14:08

No, unfortunately, I would say that this past year we have seen a lot of projects that have been floated somewhat quickly without the required time for historic preservation reviews, so they are extremely unprecedented. And for example, I would say, and our society has taken a stand on all of these projects or many of them. The- I would begin with the East Wing of the White House that was taken down without any notice. There was-- We were told that there is going to be a project that is planned, but like I said, and typically, there is a long review process that allows those deliberations to happen and those impacts to be assessed before doing any physical work. Now, in the case of the East Wing, none of that was done. It was all done retroactively. So that project is now being pushed through the review, but the East Wing is already gone. And even for and that happened with the Kennedy Center. There was talk about redoing it. Thankfully, it seems like that has been walked back a little bit. The Eisenhower Executive Office Building or the EEOB building, there is a plan currently in the works to paint it white. That building is a national historic landmark, and again, has to go through Section 106 process. The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool that, has been in the news a lot. And, I would like to say one thing, that regardless of whatever has happened to the pool, whether at the end of the day, it is going to prevent the leakage, it is a good idea to coat it or not coat it, I think that is besides the point. The fact that required laws and regulations leading up to this project in terms of the required reviews have not happened, that is the broader concern that I think we should all be worried about, because we don't want to do something and ask for forgiveness later, because this is irreparable harm that can be caused to our nation's heritage. We want to, even if it takes a little bit of time, we want to take the required time to do things right, and I think we should de- expect that of our federal government because they're the stewards of our national parks and our national heritage.

Missy Rentz 16:16

Absolutely. Again, the closing the closing date is June 15th for public comment, so please go to parkplanning.nps.gov, and I'll put links everywhere so that it makes it easier for you to find it. Priya, I am very grateful to you for coming on in this very last-minute episode. It's really important that we get the message out, and I would like to invite you to come back any time we need to get the word out about something that can help protect our public lands

Priya Jain 16:47

Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity

Missy Rentz 16:50

That's all for this episode. Please go make a comment on the public comments, and until next time, we'll see you in the parks.

16:57

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed today's episode, please be sure to like and share on your favorite podcast platform. Music for the parks podcast is performed and produced by Porter Hardy. For more information, please follow us at The Parks Podcast, or visit our website at TheParksPodcast.com.