National Mall story in the Los Angeles Times

An aerial view of the Washington Mall show patches of bare ground on lawn. (Paul J. Richards / AFP/Getty Images)

Over the years, in some respects, the LA Times has done a better job covering the neglect of the National Mall than has the Washington Post, including this article from last week, "National Mall reflects magnificence and neglect" abstracted as:

The sad decline of the historic promenade shows in trampled lawns and unfiltered pools. With 2 million visitors expected for the inauguration and 25 million yearly, the park service can't keep up.

-- "National Mall may finally get a face lift," Nov 2, 2006. p. A.12
-- "FIVE YEARS AFTER; CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; The continued mauling of the National Mall," Sep 9, 2006. p. E.1
-- "ART REVIEW; A memorial to forget; The $174-million project honoring World War II veterans, opening this week on Washington's National Mall, is a wretchedly conceptualized effort that plays up modern excess and discounts the common man" May 23, 2004. p. E.27
-- "CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Public trust, private gain; Nonprofit culture and private commercialism: Each is vital. But mixing them is becoming common and problematic," Feb 15, 2004. p. E.42
-- "COMMENTARY; America's maul; The sublime emptiness of Washington's National Mall stands for nothing less than democracy. If the nation's politicians won't protect it, the public must," Apr 20, 2003. p. E.35

In some respects it's easier for the Los Angeles Times to be critical than the Washington Post, which has to maneuver often conflicting objectives: being the critic; supporting the growth machine; not rocking the boat too much so as to be "pragmatic;" etc. For example, the Post columnist piece on John Akridge, the annointed Growth Machine connected fixer, chair of the Trust for the National Mall, "Time to Fix the National Mall," doesn't really get into counter proposals ( National Coalition to Save Our Mall) and their being boxed out of "official" channels and influence.

Roger Lewis, who writes a twice monthly column in the real estate section of the Post on urban design issues, did write about the National Mall, "Let's Not Neglect the National Mall," discussing a new book on the Mall. From the article:

One of the book's contributors, Judy Scott Feldman, founder and chairman of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, believes that this question cannot be answered as long as fragmented oversight and ad hoc decision-making persist.

Asking "who's in charge of the Mall?," she proposes a McMillan-type congressional commission to be solely responsible for the Mall. It would bring forth a new, visionary plan for the Mall proper, even addressing more mundane issues: parking, restrooms, food service, maintenance of walks and vegetation, storm water drainage, lighting and security.

One of the "problems" we face with dealing with the National Mall is that while it is bracketed by the Smithsonian Institution's museums, the National Gallery of Art, and one of the buildings of the Dept. of Agriculture (which I think should be given over to the Smithsonian for use as a museum), the Mall is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, and they don't listen too well to us locals, plus they have a hard time balancing their focus on urban vs. non-urban parks.