Nicolai Haugsted
Trump’s architectural legacy project moves forward as preservation experts accuse the government of ignoring their concerns.
Donald Trump wants to make a very large addition to Washington’s already famous skyline.
At 250 feet, his planned triumphal arch near the Potomac River would tower over many of the capital’s existing landmarks and stand roughly opposite the Lincoln Memorial near Arlington National Cemetery.
Getting something that large built among some of America’s most historically sensitive sites was never going to involve a small amount of paperwork.
Now one particularly contentious part of that process is being brought to an abrupt end.
According to Politico, The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation announced Thursday that it is terminating consultation over an agreement intended to address the project’s effects on historic properties, after preservation officials in Washington, D.C., and Virginia resisted the National Park Service’s proposed approach.
Local historians refused to play along
Federal law requires agencies to consider how projects could affect historic properties through a process known as Section 106 review.
Trump’s arch has provided plenty for preservation officials to consider.
The National Park Service identified 42 historic properties within the project’s area of potential effect, including six National Historic Landmarks, eight historic districts and eight cultural landscapes.
Federal officials concluded that the arch would have adverse effects because of its enormous visual presence and changes to historic views, sightlines and landscapes.
NPS consequently proposed an agreement designed to mitigate those effects.
Preservation officials in D.C. and Virginia were not ready to sign.
Letters sent Monday described efforts to finalize the mitigation plan as “premature,” according to the source material, with officials arguing that important questions about the project’s impact remained unresolved.
Thursday brought the federal response.
Further consultation on the agreement is over.
Critic calls it ‘our way or the highway’
Ending consultation does not erase the Section 106 process altogether.
ACHP will instead prepare formal comments for Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. Once Burgum considers those comments and responds, the historic-preservation review will be concluded.
Still, the method used to reach that point has raised eyebrows among preservation experts.
Charles Birnbaum, president and CEO of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, offered a particularly sharp interpretation.
“This is the government saying, ‘It’s our way or the highway,'” Birnbaum said.
“‘We know best, and we’re going to build what we want.'”
His comments represent his assessment of the administration’s approach rather than a formal description of what ACHP’s decision legally means.
ACHP itself says consulting parties raised concerns over the purpose of the project, identification of affected historic properties, the assessment of those effects and whether the proposed mitigation was sufficient.
Trump’s arch is difficult to miss
Scale sits near the heart of the controversy.
Plans call for the main architectural structure to reach approximately 166 feet, with statues taking its total height to roughly 250 feet.
Granite would cover the reinforced concrete structure, while the surrounding development would include a plaza, lighting, security barriers, surveillance systems and changes to pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
Location makes the project even more sensitive.
Memorial Circle sits within a ceremonial landscape connected to Arlington Memorial Bridge, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington House, Lady Bird Johnson Park and Washington’s broader monumental core.
Critics have argued that inserting a giant new vertical structure there would fundamentally alter carefully designed views connecting existing landmarks.
The National Park Service’s own assessment agrees that adverse effects would occur, including alterations to important vistas and reciprocal sightlines.
Trump nevertheless has made clear that modesty is not exactly the design brief.
His preferred 250-foot height would make the structure substantially taller than Paris’ Arc de Triomphe.
The project recently got even more complicated
Preservationists were already examining the arch as a monumental structure when Trump added another purpose.
The president announced this month that the site would also function as a military complex, with space for drones, sniper positions and ammunition storage.
According to the source material, the National Trust for Historic Preservation subsequently argued that the mitigation plan needed to be redone because the project’s purpose had materially changed.
Security infrastructure already appears throughout the formal project description.
ACHP lists surveillance, access-control systems, security screening facilities and other security features among the components of the undertaking.
Trump’s military announcement therefore adds another layer to a preservation review that was hardly short of complications to begin with.
Trump appointees control a crucial commission
Another federal body still matters enormously to the arch’s future.
The National Capital Planning Commission is expected to consider final approval of the project, with administration officials targeting a November meeting.
Trump appointees lead the commission, while staff concerns have included the extraordinary height of the proposed structure.
Approval remains important because the administration wants the arch to rise far above the 130-foot height limit generally applicable to Washington buildings. The administration has argued that the restriction should not apply to the monument.
Trump has also reshaped ACHP itself.
According to the source material, he removed six members appointed by previous Democratic presidents last year before their terms had expired and replaced them with his own choices.
Such changes form part of the political backdrop to Thursday’s highly unusual intervention.
Public gets less than a week
People who still want their views included have a narrow window.
ACHP has invited the public and consulting parties to submit comments about the arch’s impact on historic properties by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 29.
The council plans to send its formal comments to the Interior Department by October 7.
“Once the Secretary of the Interior considers and responds to the ACHP’s comments, the Section 106 review for this undertaking will be concluded,” the council’s notice states.
Virginia officials, meanwhile, have not indicated that they consider the argument finished.
Roger Kirchen, director of Virginia’s Department of Historic Resources, said his agency was “still assessing the situation and will be engaging the ACHP on next steps.”
