Site Lines and the Planned WWII Memorial

While Christopher Knight’s commentary on the proposed World War II memorial being placed on the site of the present Rainbow Pool exposes some of the politics that may have played into the site selection process (what a shocker), his article has more invective and hyperbole than rational thought on why it’s a bad location for the memorial (“Damage to a Prime Piece of Real Estate,” July 19).

Anyone who has walked the length of the National Mall between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial knows what a lonely, empty space of land it is. The proposed WWII memorial is aesthetically well-suited to the location and vice versa, and is in keeping with the existing Washington architecture (unlike the Vietnam War Memorial, which nonetheless has become a cultural touchstone cherished by the public and art critics alike).

Most important, the prominent location is wholly justified, as WWII is the most epochal event of the 20th century, second only to the Constitution and Bill of Rights in assuring the freedoms most of us take for granted today. The memorial will fit architecturally, but more importantly, emotionally, with the millions of Americans whose loved ones lost their lives to keep our country free.

“Build it, and they will come.” That’s what matters most.

DAVID ARMBRUSTER

Oceanside

Washington and Lincoln must be turning over in their memorials.

JUDY FARRIS

Rancho Mirage

As an architect and World War II veteran, I say hats off to Rhode Island architect Friedrich St. Florian for his sensitive design, so well integrated into the fabric of the site.

DAN SAXON PALMER

Woodland Hills