Skip to contentSkip to site index

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

How the Giant D.C. Arch Would Compare to Others Across the World

See how President Trump’s proposed arch would dwarf other monumental arches.

ByMarco Hernandez and Anushka Patil

The federal Commission of Fine Arts on Thursday preliminarily approved plans for a hulking 250-foot “triumphal arch” to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, one of several construction projects President Trump has conjured up in an effort to leave his aesthetic mark on Washington.

Despite the preliminary approval, the panel’s vice chairman suggested major changes, including the removal of a winged statue on top of the arch that makes up the final third of the 250 foot height Mr. Trump desired.

The Trump administration was asked to return with updated drawings before a final vote by the panel, which is stacked with Trump allies and holds only an advisory role.

Mr. Trump wants the arch to rise up from a roundabout near Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial. His design prominently features the heavy gold embellishments that have come to be known as a signature Trump style.

The arch, whose cost the administration has not released, carries the feel of a Trump design for another reason: As originally proposed, it is simply massive.

Though it is loosely modeled on the Arc de Triomphe, the neoclassical monument in Paris commissioned by Napoleon, the arch Mr. Trump proposed would dwarf that by some 86 feet.

In fact, the arch submitted to the panel would be taller than nearly every other monumental arch across the United States and across the world. Here’s a sampling:

Arches in the U.S.

Illustration of the proposed arch in Washington D.C. (250 ft), alongside two arches to scale in New York City: Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Memorial Arch (80 ft.) and Washington Square Arch (74 ft.).
Illustrations of arches in Europe to scale compared with the proposed arch in Washington, D.C. They are: Arch of Constantine in Rome (69 ft.), Arc de Triomphe in Paris (164 ft.), Brandenburg Gate in Berlin (85 ft.) and Arco da Rua Augusta in Lisbon (98 ft).<strong></strong>
Illustrations of arches in Asia to scale compared with the proposed arch in Washington, D.C. They are: Patuxai in Vientiane, Laos (180 ft.), India Gate in New Delhi (138 ft.) and Arch of Triumph in Pyongyang, North Korea (197 ft.).<strong></strong>
Illustrations of arches to scale compared with the proposed arch in Washington, D.C. They are: Monumento a la Revolución in Mexico (220 ft), Arco de Carabobo in Venezuela (92 ft.), and Puerta de Alcalá in Madrid (78 ft).

Many of the world’s monumental arches are war memorials, such as New Delhi’s India Gate and New York City’s Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Memorial Arch. Some commemorate revolutions, like Mexico City’s Monumento a la Revolución, and others, like Lisbon’s Rua Augusta Arch, symbolize the strength of a people.

Asked in October who the proposed Washington arch would be for, Mr. Trump responded, “Me.”

If built as the Trump administration planned, the arch would remake Washington’s landscape. Its proposed location means it would be in full view when entering or leaving the capital via the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Its originally proposed height means it would be taller than the Lincoln Memorial and nearly as tall as the U.S. Capitol building.

Washington landmarks

The White House expects to complete construction before the end of Mr. Trump’s term. But questions remain on how the arch would be built, including who would pay for it.

It remains possible that, like Mr. Trump’s planned 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom, the proposed arch could get caught up in a legal quagmire.

A group of Vietnam War veterans, as well as an architectural historian, have sued in federal court to stop its construction. The lawsuit argues that the arch would require congressional approval under various statutes, including the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, which dictates that a memorial built in the proposed location must be of “pre-eminent historical and lasting significance to the United States.”

Several congressional Democrats filed an amicus brief in support of that lawsuit in March. Washington, the brief states, “is not the President’s backyard to renovate, relandscape, and build in as he sees fit.”