height

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts on Thursday approved the design for the triumphal arch that President Trump wants built at an entrance to the nation’s capital.

Commissioners, all of whom were appointed by Trump, approved the design despite overwhelming opposition from the public. Approval is a key step in the project’s process.

The proposed arch is one of several projects the Republican president is pursuing alongside a White House ballroom to leave his imprint on Washington.

He has said some of his other projects, such as adding a blue coating to the interior of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, will beautify the city in time for July 4 celebrations of America’s 250th birthday.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts approved the concept for the arch at its monthly meeting in April.

As presented to the federal agency, the arch itself would stand 250 feet tall from its base to a torch held aloft by a Lady Liberty-like figure on top of the structure. The statue would be flanked on top by two eagles and guarded at the base by four lions — all gilded. The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would be inscribed in gold lettering atop either side of the monument.

A public observation deck on top would provide 360-degree views of the surroundings.

The commission’s vice chairman, architect James McCrery II, said in April that he preferred the arch without the figures on top. Removing them would significantly reduce the arch’s height by about 80 feet. Critics of the project, including an overwhelming number of people who submitted public comment in April, said the arch would be taller than any other monument in the capital city and dominate the skyline.

At a height of 250 feet, the arch would dwarf the Lincoln Memorial, which is 99 feet tall, and be close to half the height of the Washington Monument, an obelisk that is about 555 feet tall.

McCrery also recommended that the lions on the base be removed because that animal is “not a beast natural to the North American continent.” And he objected to plans for an underground tunnel for pedestrians to get to the arch, which would be built on a traffic circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

Preliminary surveys and testing of the site began last week.

A group of veterans and a historian have sued the Trump administration in federal court to block construction on grounds that the arch would disrupt the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery, among other reasons.

Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have argued that Washington is the only major Western world capital without such an arch. Burgum’s department includes the National Park Service, which manages the plot where Trump wants to put the arch.

Trump’s rehab of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is also the subject of a court challenge brought by the Cultural Landscape Foundation, which said the administration’s moves to repaint the bottom of the Reflecting Pool blue without first undergoing relevant reviews ran afoul of federal preservation laws governing historic sites.

The nonprofit group argued in a lawsuit filed last week that the changes at the Reflecting Pool are part of Trump’s broader effort to push through dramatic renovations in Washington without proper reviews and undermine the tone of the area.

A hearing in the case was scheduled for Thursday afternoon in federal court in Washington.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

This question essentially centres on the push by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem to return Formula 1 to a set of engine regulations that are pretty much the same as the era from 2010-13.

We delved into this topic extensively last week. There’s a link to that article below.

Now, as to the specific question, yes, 2013 was pretty boring, or at least the second half of it was.

The season started relatively competitively – Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel won four of the first 10 grands prix, but Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso, Lotus’ Kimi Raikkonen and Mercedes drivers Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton all won over that period.

But a change to the specification of tyres following a series of blow-outs at the British Grand Prix led to Red Bull dominating and Vettel won the last nine races in a row to clinch a fourth consecutive world title.

The last years of the V8 era, once refuelling was banned at the end of 2009, fluctuated between intensely competitive and, er, not.

The 2010 and 2012 seasons had gripping title fights. In 2010 there were five drivers in the running until the penultimate race, and four mathematically at the last one.

That was the year Ferrari dropped the ball on strategy in Abu Dhabi and threw away the title, letting Red Bull and Vettel in to win their first title.

In 2012, there were seven different winners in the first seven races, and the title fight between Vettel and Alonso went to the final race again.

In 2011, as in 2013, Vettel and Red Bull dominated.

But there were a lot more factors involved in those scenarios than just engines. Tyres, for one. The relative competitiveness of the cars for another.

However, the naturally aspirated era – and especially the years from 1994-2009 when there was refuelling – was notorious for the lack of overtaking on track.

That has certainly increased this year with the new style of “yo-yo racing” brought about by the new hybrid engines.

There are so many issues wrapped up in this engine debate. Some of it may well be people harking back to the past, one they felt was more attractive than what F1 serves up today.

But there is also a cost issue, whether the essence of F1 has been polluted, noise, the changing road-car market place and on and on.