He added that the complex will be like none “anywhere in the World.”

“Out of the 59 top cities and Capitals, Washington, D.C., IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A TRIUMPHAL ARCH, but it will now and, by far, the greatest of them all!” his post concludes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 6 days ago (10 children)

the 59 top cities and Capitals

puzzled

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 6 days ago (5 children)

    I live in a "top city" (I'm assuming he means by population?) and we sure as shit don't have a triumphal arch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 6 days ago* (3 children)

    no, i think it's dumber than that.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-Roman_triumphal_arches

    if you count the number of unique cities in that list it's 58.

    actually maybe my theory is wrong... washington d.c. is actually in that list and does have an arch...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    washington DC is already listed in that lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago

    Controversy

    Criticism of the location

    Critics such as the National Coalition to Save Our Mall opposed the location of the memorial. A major criticism of the location was that it would interrupt what had been an unbroken view between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. The memorial was also criticized for taking up open space that had been historically used for major demonstrations and protests.^26^^27^^28^

    Critics were particularly bothered by the expedited approval process, which is considerably lengthy most of the time.^29^ The United States Congress, worried that World War II veterans were dying before an appropriate memorial could be built, passed legislation exempting the World War II Memorial from further site and design review. Congress also dismissed pending legal challenges to the memorial.^30^

    Criticism of the design and style

    There were also aesthetic objections to the design. A critic from the Boston Herald described the monument as "vainglorious, demanding of attention and full of trite imagery."^31^ The Philadelphia Inquirer argued that "this pompous style was also favored by Hitler and Mussolini."^32^ The Washington Post described it as "overbearing", "bombastic", and a "hodgepodge of cliche and Soviet-style pomposity" with "the emotional impact of a slab of granite".^33^

    The monument was dismissed by one prominent architecture critic as "knee-jerk historicism".^34^

    The design unveiled by President Bill Clinton included 50 columns honoring the 48 states of the Union during World War II and two of the eight non-state jurisdictions at the time of the war: the territories of Alaska and Hawaii that subsequently were admitted into the Union. On June 2, 1997, the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly approved a Concurrent Resolution^35^ requesting the addition of a column honoring the territory of Puerto Rico's participation in the war effort. Its author, Sen. Kenneth McClintock, began a lobbying campaign. Eventually, the number of columns was raised to 56, honoring the 48 states, the District of Columbia, and the seven U.S. territories at the time: Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Philippines,^36^ and the United States Virgin Islands.^37^

  • source
  • parent