Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-11-02
Root of the Controversy

During nearly decade OF unre-
hitting controversy over the Theodore
Roosevelt Bridge, the dominant bone Of
contention has been the intricate maze
of freeways, ramps and overpasses which
modern trafic demands have made
necessary on the Washington side of the
river. Initially, when the still unbuilt
span was known as the "E Street
Bridge" the protests were against its
infringement on Theodore Roosevelt Is
land and the floods of trafic which the
bridge would route toward the White
House. Later, when the bridge was
shifted downriver, the conflict revolved
around the approach roads impact i'll
the Lincoln Memorial area.
Now the protests have arisen again,
this time directed to the effect of the
bridge approaches and the inner loop
freeway on plans for the National Gull
tural Center, which by law is to be
bounded by the Potomac parkway on
one side and the highway network on
the other.
Indeed, no one who examines the
highway plans "a photograph Of a model
of the network is printed on Page B-1
Of today's Starr can fail to be over
whelmed by its completely and magni-
tude. AS much as everyone would like
the situation to be otherwise, however,
certain number of these concrete COM
plexes are essential-and will be even
more so in the future. It is easy to
deplore their disruptive effects. Cities
throughout the Nation, however, are
learning that the real challenge is to
adapt themSelves-in the least disrup-
tive manner possible-to the changing
requirements of transportation, the in
f1uence of which could not possibly have
been foreseen in the days when cities
first were formed. In the case of the
Roosevelt Bridge approaches, highway
officials, who certainly are under the
greatest of pressures in this matter, in
siSt that topography and trafic needs
permit no major changes in their plans
without adding new, dense bottlenecks
to impede the flow Of traffic.
If the bridge approaches and the
inner loop do in fact injuriously affect
the site and the future appearance of
the projected cultural center, the only
way to avoid that result is to move
either the bridge or the cultural center.
And this, considering the circumstances,
would be out of the question.
What remains? The obvious answer
is that the facts of life should be faced,
and the facts are that both Of these
projects are worthwhile, If not essential,
additions to the Capital, and must live
together. The immediate job for the
architects and engineers is to minimize
the conflict to the fullest extent possible.
Some notifications in the highways,
seemingly minor, may help. And Archi-
tect Edward Durell Stone, who has de-
signed plans for the center, repeatedly
has lesSened the conflict between high
ways and the cultural center project in
some degree by extending the cultural
center buildings westward to the river.
Full understanding of these plans.
unfortunately, is still clouded by the
fact that the plans have not yet been
made public. They have been examined
ny the Fine Arts Commission and sew
eral private groups. The National Capt.
tai Planning Commission will see them
next Thursday. After that, we hope the
general public will be permitted to have
its turn and base its judgment on an
examination Of what actually is being
planned.