Moderator: Nicole Marie
I wrote:Aim for life-size and dignified; it wears better in the long run.
Shapley wrote:It is fine to honour FDR as a man who was able to overcome disability to rise to greatness, but putting him in the wheelchair shows a man being overcome by disability, not a man overcoming it
piqaboo wrote:What I can not agree with is that showing the chair diminishes him.
Flight 93 reminded us that America still produces heroes. Too bad we don't also produce worthy monuments for them.
After choosing the Murdoch/Nelson Byrd Woltz design, the Flight 93 Advisory Commission set about justifying the project, compiling a 215-page draft of their General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. The conceit of the report was that the commission was evaluating two options: leaving the temporary memorial as is, or building the new memorial. It is no scandal that the commission's report concluded that building the new memorial was preferred. But the justifications they used were revealing.
The costs of the two alternatives differed enormously, of course. The as-is option did not mean literally leaving the temporary memorial alone. It would have allocated $450,000 for building a small visitor's center, more parking, and improved access roads. It also would have spent $8 million to formally acquire the 657 acres of land immediately around the crash site (the other 1,605 acres would have been brokered through easements with owners). Since it would have been federalized, the National Park Service would have taken over stewardship from the county and spent $750,000 per year to operate the site.
The proposed new memorial was more expensive. In addition to the $44.7 million construction costs, land acquisition costs were estimated at $10 million and annual operating costs at $1 million.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]