 Almost 5.31. I see people joining. I'll give them a few more minutes before we get going. It looks like we have a critical mass now. Hi, everyone. Welcome back to the forum webinar series. I'm Siri Warden, Senior Field Director for the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Project Director of the Title Basin Ideas Lab. And I'll be hosting the webinar today. This evening's event is sponsored by Preservation Leadership Forum, which, if you're not aware, is the Professional Membership Program of the National Trust. And this webinar series is made possible by forum members, and we thank those of you who have joined us today. Today's webinar has been developed in partnership with our close friends at Trust for the National Mall and is the second in a series of conversations about the Title Basin Ideas Lab and the changing nature of public space and the complexities of its preservation. The session today will focus on issues of sustainability and light of climate change. And before we get going, just a few technical announcements, we will take questions from the audience throughout the webinar. Please send those questions in via the Q&A function directly to panelists. And you can submit at any point, but we will wait till the conclusion of our panelists to answer those questions. You can also use the chat function to communicate to all participants today. Following the program, we will send you out a recording of today's webinar to the email you use to register. And finally, all of our forum webinars are archived in our forum webinar library. And now I'd like to introduce our speakers. Donald Albrecht is an independent curator and author. His exhibitions and books have ranged from overviews of cultural trends to profiles of prominent visual and performing artists. He's worked for the Library of Congress, Vitra Design Museum, Cooper Hewitt Smithsonian Design Museum, and the Museum of the City of New York, among other institutions. Thomas Melons has curated exhibitions on a wide variety of architectural and cultural subjects from 400 years of residential architecture and domestic life in America to the history of the New York Public Library. Additionally, he is the co-author of three volumes in an award-winning series of books on the architecture and urbanism of New York City. And I had the pleasure of working with Donald and Tom, who are the co-curators of the Ideas Lab exhibition. And today they'll give you a brief presentation on the Ideas Lab and moderate a panel with really fantastic guest speakers that include Sarah Bronen, Thomas F. Gallivan Chair in Real Property Law and Faculty Director at the Center for Energy and Environmental Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, Nathan Hevers, an Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and Teresa Durkin, Executive Vice President of the Trust for the National Mall. And now I'd like to turn over the program to Donald and Tom. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sarah. Each of our webinars is inspired by an online exhibition, which Sarah just mentioned, titled, The Title Based in Ideas Lab, which you see an image of here. This is one of the pages from the online exhibition and you'll learn a little more about it in a moment. But for now, I just want to give you the general outline. The website or the online exhibition explores many aspects of Washington DC's title basin, including its contemporary and future challenges, its history, a set of proposals and a way in which you can participate. Could I have the next image. The site of the title basin in Washington DC has been the focus of engineering, architectural and landscape interventions since the late 19th century. The formative period though is really the 1880s through the 1940s. It was then that to stop the Potomac River from flooding the site, gates were built to regulate the water's flow. These gates created today's title basin. At the beginning of the 20th century, the landscape was radically changed by the creation of a grove of cherry trees, which is the site of the very popular cherry tree festival every spring. And in the mid 1940s, the Jefferson Memorial was completed, the first of many memorials that have been built in its wake. Can I have the next image. However, these gates from the late 1880s are inoperable, and the site floods daily, it's deeply in danger. The rising waters and the sinking of Washington DC itself due to geological shifts exacerbate the problems confronting the title basin. Can I have the next slide. Additionally, the site is in effect a victim of its own popularity. Tourists flock to the site to see the memorials throughout the year, and millions come to see the cherry trees in the spring. This overcrowding has added to security problems and environmental problems. Can I have the next image. The historic image shows you what the site will look like if nothing is done. It is largely it will be largely inaccessible within decades. Can I have the next image. Now in response to this problem, and to the importance of this cultural landscape, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the trust of the National Mall initiated what they dubbed an ideas lab. To spark creative ideas and solutions to the problem. So not just an answer to the problems, but also what might a new landscape look like for the 21st century. Can I have the next image in the cultural landscape report the treatment of the title basin was recognized as not only conserving current conditions, but also given the intense threats of the landscape how could this be responded to. As a result, five landscape architects of national renowned in the United States were invited to participate. Landscape architects think regionally, and over long periods of time, which was necessary requirements for addressing the problems and the challenges of the title basin. Can I have the next image. Okay, now on to Tom. It was a deliberate decision on the part of the trust, not to hold a conventional design competition leading to a single winner. The reason for that was that they felt if there was a more open discussion and greater exchange of ideas among the five firms that a broad range of responses would result from very practical kind of roadmap for change to very conceptual and the notion behind that was that if it included visionary, if impractical responses, it would stimulate a kind of national conversation and and help people to think out of the box to really reimagine the entire cultural landscape. Another example is the proposal put forward by D land studio, which is headed by Susanna Drake, and to highlight just one aspect of their proposal. It was suggested that a new peninsula land mass be actually created and project out into the water, and you see this in the lower left hand side of the image adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial. This would provide a new gathering space, but it would do more than that. Maybe we see the next slide please. I also involve the relocation of the more recent Martin Luther King junior Memorial and its relocation had has two motivations in this proposal. One is to simply move it to higher ground to protect it from potential damage due to rising waters, but the other is a more provocative gesture, if you will, which is to create a direct physical and conceptual link between these two great American figures, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. Next slide please. The response of GGN, which for this project was headed by Catherine Gustafson took a very different approach and focused on the landscape itself. It called for a plan to be realized incrementally over a 70 year span so looking far into the future, and it focused on forest station and the creation of new wooded areas, new meadows and wetlands and in the process. The cherry trees would be moved to higher ground and also augmented by native flowering trees to tie the landscape into the greater region and the natural environment. Next slide please. Read Hildebrand under projects Gary Hildebrand and Eric Kramer focus not only on gathering spaces but on circulation. And they proposed a series of new walkways, some at the level of the title basin, but others elevated here we see one such walkway called independence rise. Next slide please. Walter Hood took a very different approach and created a series of narratives what he called a novella in four acts, and each section involved an imagined tour. In this case we see an African American family touring the site, and whose interventions would be a series of signs or structures that would, in a sense, peel back the landscape to reveal hidden histories. And one such example is the so called hush harbor, the title basin and the adjacent wetlands are similar to G natural formations that you would find throughout the region including on former tide water plantations on those plantations the wetlands served a very particular purpose for enslaved African Americans, which was that it was a place that they could congregate and speak to each other with a certain degree a certain enhanced degree of freedom, albeit in hushed voices and it's, it's in these environments such as this that the black church is actually first built. So, that took a very different approach. Next slide please. The, the final of the five proposals was by James corner field operations and their proposal actually consisted of three different approaches, what we see here called for the creation of infrastructure, incorporating paths, but also creating a barrier between the water and the land to literally hold back the water, so that the pathways wouldn't flood. And this was a more conventional approach to distinguishing between water and land, but another one of their proposals next slide please. was a radical approach and allows actually the title basin to partially flood the surrounding land. And what this results in is that some of the monuments would then occupy separate islands. So, they are transforming the existing they are calling for the transformation of the existing title basin into an archipelago. So I think with these images and approaches and ideas in mind. We will now turn to asking our guests Sarah Ronan, an initial question and then open it up to the panel so Donald. I have a question initially for Sarah. As we learned from seri Warden, you wear many different professional hats and a dizzying and exciting collection of them that approach problems from different perspectives. You're a lawyer, a professor, a policy maker. Could you talk a little bit how you mix and match that toolbox of skills to create and preserve meaningful and sustainable public spaces, like the title base. Yeah, well first thank you so much for having me and for your leadership in curating this amazing exhibit, I think it, it's really intellectually stimulating and can teach us a lot about who we are now and how we approach land now and what we might actually how we might approach later. I mean for me, you know anything that I do is really related to improving space. I focus a lot on public space. And if you think about it historic preservation is all about that public space because a lot of it is about what people can do from public rights of way and and how people experience historic places in their context. So, you know for me it's not, you know one hat versus the other hat it's really an exploration many different disciplines, as to how our places can can serve serve contemporary purposes and to the extent historic part of our landscape as we see here in the title base and I think it's all of our responsibility as preservationists and as people who care about who care about meaningful experiences. It's all of our responsibility to really think about how we can shape this historic place and its challenge. It's, it's really that existential challenge. It's the way we know it, the title base and will not exist. So it's up to us to decide how we're going to respond to that and I think again these ideas are so thought provoking. I just never happy to join the conversation. I want to hop on that quickly and wondered if you might give a specific example of how, for example, your professional role as a lawyer might change the way that you would respond to the proposals that we just looked at or broad questions that the public might have about what direction the title basin could go in. The thing about law and historic preservation law is that, while the historic preservation field is about adaptation as practitioners and historic preservation we're always thinking about how we can adapt and hold space or an old building to be interpreted or to be used for modern purposes. So, while the field is about that historic preservation law, often is not about that and often what historic preservation law does is it locks in some in some cases, a static concept of what space has to be. So if you think about the kinds of laws that would apply to the title basin. I can think of just a couple offhand one is because it's federal land at a federal review process called section 106, probably also the national environmental at NEPA the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as in thinking about how it might be revived the secretary of the interior standards and preservation. So you see all of these different federal laws and policies interacting. And, again, from a very broad brush perspective right now what they probably dictate in the title basin is rebuilding as it is now in the most accurate way to what we have now is what is before and so I think, as a lawyer, I see the law sometimes is a barrier to helping this reimagine historic for people today and to address the climate change challenges is one that we see insights all over the country, and we see cities, states, private property owners ability to respond to climate change in their historic places running up against some of the constraints of law. So I think there's problems there. And certainly to reiterate something which Tom pointed out one of the reasons why the National Trust and the trust of the National Mall had ideas lab versus a competition. In the competition there's a winner, and you may oftentimes the competitors are probably to judging what's going to win, and they're going to be less speculative. I think it's a way to make it more speculative and more provocative. They didn't bind them to coming up with the winning answer. They actually asked them to be a speculative as possible. In the context of what you've seen from the speculative to the provocative to the speculative provocative to the pragmatic. How would you respond to the pros, the proposals we've seen of the title basin. Can you, are there two or three takeaway messages from your survey of them in that range of the provocative to the practical. So I mean I think what really struck me about the proposals was the different places that they came from so while they were all primarily landscape architecture firms although some of them do interdisciplinary work in addition to landscape architecture. The hood studio design really coming from a place of history and stories that had not been told. You saw the d land design really saying we're embracing this sort of climate catastrophe that's striking the title basin and and let's just really rethink completely the whole thing is oriented it's no longer. Is it really a basin anymore and then you see the James corner field operations design at really again reconceiving, especially in the island archipelago example really reconceiving just the people's current perception of the title basin this is sort of include enclosed space that that's somewhat connected, but you know, making these do you know wild giant islands everywhere and for for the purpose of defend defense and protection but also really reshaping it. I mean, again, the different approaches were what really struck me and it's hard to say, you know whether the couple that adhere more closely to the current geometry and the current perceptions, and try to preserve that are actually the best approach I mean perhaps it is time to radically we think, think the basin. We should probably now be rejoined by our other participants. So, Teresa Durkin and Nathan Hebrews. Hello, everyone. One of the things that strikes me unites these very disparate visions is that they're all very ambitious in different ways. And while the 19th century infrastructure is no longer working. And the monuments are the subject of much discussion and a certain degree of conflict and contention today, in terms of who writes American history. And this striking that despite those elements. You have to say that the individuals and the groups and the government that originally created the title basin were nothing but ambitious, you know, if, if, if, if anything else that they were certainly ambitious. How can we today harness that degree of civic engagement that degree of civic will and that degree of government involvement. What would answer that. Yes, I think we're at the foundation of the whole project. I think we're at the very beginning of doing just that and that was really the reason to have an ideas lab as opposed to a design competition which would, would march along that path the NEPA, the section 106 environmental assessment, you know the winning design, and would be very prescribed in its outcome. And we felt that at this point in time. DC was ready for a big idea, I mean the big idea in the 1700s was long false plan when it was a fledgling nation in a rural area in the in the late 1800s. And it was built two years after some epic flooding, you know that you couldn't you couldn't access the southern part of the city only only by boat. So that was the big idea of that time, and it was built in response to flooding. Today we were also facing flooding challenges we're still we're still facing that and many cities around the country are almost all of them. So if you think about the hard alternatives that you have to make in an urban area with flooding, you're probably at some point going to have to seed back the land to accommodate the flooding, but in our case, that land is the national mall. We cannot afford to lose that. And we knew that with the ideas lab we could start to have a dialogue around these very important discussions and and admit to ourselves that the national mall is a vulnerable landscape and one that we just cannot afford to lose. So what are we going to do about it. It's going to take decades and generations to solve likely, but we had to start the dialogue. Do you want to add to that. Yes. One thing that I think that's really important to think about is that while it does appear to be have been a monumental task to create this landscape that we now love. It also has developed over a long period of time. So there've been different. There's been a different impetus at each moment. The first was really the flooding issue these huge floods in the 1870s when Georgetown was under 25 feet of water. And, and there have been, it's taken it's taken time to develop the landscape that we have now. So I think at the core of all of the proposals is the idea of time and that the, the next stages of this, this precious landscape will take time. And that there's not a kind of a singular solution to the situation that we're now in. It's very interesting because when you say that time is a theme that runs through all of them. What strikes me is that what's required as patients. So, in addition to ambition, you need patients in the town that I live in ambition is in great supply and patients is hard to buy. So, yes, I don't know if it's different in Washington, but it seems it takes patients to I mean think about the FDR Memorial, which is one of the wonderful spaces along the title basin, and how long that took and then you know the 20 to 25 years for the MLK Memorial. So it's this, the tricky thing is that we're we're just beginning to enjoy the fruits of these memorials, and now we're facing these additional challenges. Another question. Another question. This is more for Sarah. It goes to the many hats question again. As a policymaker. What advice do you give architects, regarding our responses to climate change. And as an architect, what advice do you give policy makers, how do you engage yourself in the dialogue between those two people one group deals with the physical, architect, and one group deals with the more ephemeral and the political the policy maker. Yeah, so, so as an architect, I, and I work here with the AIA Connecticut and, and of course nationally to just set a webinar with them on Monday. And actually that the theme of this talk that I gave to the national and Monday was get involved with in that case zoning reform, because architects are not always at the forefront of developing laws. And the problem with that is that lawyers who don't have that background, end up creating rules about physical space, whether it's zoning or historic preservation or even environmental laws that that don't really. Sort of mesh with the realities of the things that don't really mesh with the things that architects know about which is the way that space affects people the way that how we develop land and people. So my advice to architects if you're on this call is always get involved with with whatever level at whatever level of government that you possibly can to put a design stamp and embed embed design into law. For lawyers, they could benefit a lot from that expertise for policymakers I mean thinking about architecture. Of course I think the way that we relate to each other who physical space is, you know, one of the things that I think most of us on this call probably think about dominates probably the careers and thinking of most of us on this call. And policymakers who have anything to do with, with, with space shaping. It's important for them to be knowledgeable about sort of the basic elements of maybe architecture and built forms but even more importantly probably urban design and planning and how our spaces relate to each other. I think both can learn a lot from each other and I do think architects can and should play a central role in policy making. And one of the reasons why, you know, we don't have what we need is because our laws are just, they haven't cut up to a good design thinking. Yeah, I was I was struck by your comment earlier that the law locks in a static concept of what the place should be. And I think that's really what we're facing here too. What one of the key themes that came out of the ideas lab is that we really needed to identify with our partner of the National Park Service, the policies and guidelines that we're going to help us implement change. We're looking at historic preservation guidelines that the Park Service might develop, as well as actually monitoring and collecting data on scientific data on climate change again, which is something that the Department of the Interior has always done in the past so along with the other, you know, key themes about outdated infrastructure and building ecological systems. That was, that was one of the very important themes of the ideas lab that all of the designers talked about as well. You mentioned the National Parks, if I may respond. Yes. I mentioned the National Park Service, which of course plays an important role in in really establishing the Secretary of the Interior standards, the very broad principles by which changes to the title basin will be measured no matter what sort of regulatory scheme or review process we're talking about. But the advisory council on historic preservation can also play an important role, given the status and nature of this project. So I think with changes in that agency that maybe underway with the Biden administration, there's an opportunity that to figure out if the advisory council can help bridge the gap between the sort of status quo at the National Park Service and the standards and new thinking about how to to advance the climate agenda the Biden administration and many different respects. So it's not the title basin, where we're going to challenges to the regulatory framework it's, it's in every federal project every state project that adopts the standards every local government whose local historic preservation regimes adopt the standards, and we don't have the tools and standards, at least as the way they're articulated and interpreted now to address to address these issues for the good of the places that we all love and and it's going to be a sensitive process but I think it's something that's going to be have to be done at the federal level. So I think it's important to make these important changes. Do I'm curious to know, this is more for Teresa and Nathan, do individual projects, sometimes set the model for general changes of the laws, or are the laws always determined from a global standpoint. What's the relation between the particular project and the national standards. So generally what we find is we have to follow the letter of the law we're not going to be given a variance on on anything. But for the title basin, we think it's going to be imperative to to start to implement some change in some of these policies which is why we wanted to start now because, as you said, one of the ideas and making real change happen on the title basin is going to have to adapt and evolve over time so little by little will be able to do things it's never going to be one big giant project that gets wholly funded and built all at once and that's just kind of fun to happen. So, over time, with the inevitability of what we think is coming, we can start to work on the policies that are barriers to perhaps creating, you know, ecological systems as as a first step at the title basin. On and on and on. It's it's the project isn't going to change the policy the policy has to come in line first to allow for the adaptation in my experience. Nathan, yeah. Yeah, I can't really answer that one. Yeah, I could. You know, the, it would be. I think from the designers standpoint, by and large, and it would be wonderful if the two could go hand in hand. I think that this is perhaps a scenario where that might actually be possible. It's actually the, the, the difficulties that the title basin will face might inspire people to think about changing the codes. And so maybe there is a positive coming out of this scenario. The fact that it's also on the national the national stage is actually I think quite wonderful because it will draw attention to the need to think about these issues and smaller communities that don't have the resources and don't have the sort of mobility and infrastructure to challenge some of the codes if even if that's the right way to say it. It can become a national model. Yes, yes, I think that's what they've been talking about. It's it's combination between major historical monuments and sites and the flowering trees which are very ephemeral and are very tourist based. Is it interesting as it packs a wallop on many levels, the title base. I think that the exhibit is is attracting significant attention I think that it is certainly one of our most cherished cultural landscapes. I think that the imaginative part is very engaging in terms of what happens next and the process I think that for many people in the general public, it's a complete mystery, like, what happens after this. And one of the things that strikes me is that there are multiple players there's the federal government, their nonprofit groups there's the public in general, how do each of those entities. Get into the process how does each one have a voice heard the various constituents. Yeah, and that's a question for for all of you. I can just answer for the two trusts. We're doing that right now with our website around the ideas lab is writing the public to to view the proposals take the survey help us to collect information so that we can quantify that bring it share it with the park service also share it with capital hill and then try to to educate the folks on Capitol Hill about the urgency and the need at the title basin. And also to then thinking about next steps for the ideas lab, we'd like to continue on and work with the National Park Service in the master planning process which is the very next logical step that the park service goes through. We completed a cultural landscape report which acknowledges the difficulties and acknowledges that we need change because the current practices and the current maintenance of the site is not sustainable. So they're ready, they're ready for new ideas. We want to be at the master planning table with them and perhaps even bring some of the designers into the dialogue as well. So that it so that it's inoculating all these great ideas into the thinking and and then we can think about phasing and what can be done over time. But it nothing will happen quickly that you know this is a very deliberate process, but it's one that we need to sustain in order to change. From a technical standpoint, depending on the legal process we're talking about the certain entities have a formal consulting role with with the site so certified local governments in this case Washington DC might have a formal consulting role as to what happens. And so in addition to this liaising that Teresa is talking about, there may be other entities that represent different publics that may have a have an existing role in the statutes or have a role that they can petition to be to be involved with. I did want to just mention on your last question, the way you're thinking about how the law could evolve it could evolve through this process it could involve through the existing formal reviews but if you step back and look really big picture at historic preservation law generally, generally, historic preservation law always change radically because of a major historic site that was usually demolished in whether that's at the local level or the federal level the reason. One of the biggest big reasons for the National Historic Preservation Act was the demolition of Penn Station in New York City, and Jackie Kennedy's role in that and the ramp up and with that and the other statutes that evolved to protect historic properties to an extent that they weren't before because everybody said well, how did this happen well because the law wasn't written to protect it so now they're their laws that and you see that in city after city where what the heck happened a whole neighborhood was just torn down. And so we're going to write our local historic preservation laws as a result. So this is, I think this has the potential to be one of those places that catalyzes legal reform in the ways that we know we need to do we know we need to think about as a movement. And pushes it forward in a positive direction. Sarah, I want to have another question for Sarah this is moving the conversation a little bit beyond the title basin. Can you give us an example of a project you're working on now that explores climate change, and that uses historic preservation. Your role as an architect to start preservationists the lawyer. Can you give us an example of something you're working on now that might have relevance to the title basin or it might just be interesting to learn about. I dropped a link in the chat to, and I have a few more sort of scholarly pieces that have come out because I'm a law professor that's my day job so I'm so you know I write a lot in these areas, and talking about adapting the standards to climate change and if you follow the link, you know I've also been writing recently about energy efficiency and historic buildings role in helping us meet our, our energy reduction goals. And that is if we invest in their rehabilitation and so on. But thinking about projects that that I'm aware of and have not been directly involved with but I think speak to this conversation I want to talk about what the State Historic Preservation Office in Connecticut is doing, and I see Mandy who is from Connecticut and we lost her to DC and a couple others from Connecticut on the call here but but our Historic Preservation Office has taken Superstorm Sandy funding and actually done documented on our coast all of our historic sites that are within within the the areas which might be subject to sea level rise. And so the Yukon where the Institute that I help with that I'm affiliated with down in every point has done a study of sea level rise projections. And then again the state ship oh has come in and identified where historic sites are in Connecticut. And the reason I mentioned that is because there are very few states that have done those kinds of surveys data driven database surveys on on on climate change in that case sea level rise and the impacts of that but in other states it could be wildfire wildfire vulnerable zones and so on. We don't have as a movement enough data and enough sort of scholarly research on the topics that that we need in order to make really good decisions. So I'll just plug Connecticut model there as one that combines scientific data, our understanding of historic properties and also archaeological archaeological sites and buildings encompassed in that survey so I encourage folks to take a look at that. Great. I did notice as Sarah and you're incredibly impressive professional profile that that I didn't see that you're a physician as well but I have that maybe takes the conversation a little bit of a different direction and then we can circle back and then open up to questions but it does seem that public space and public health are inextricably linked. Here we are in the middle of a an ongoing pandemic. Certainly, I think has occasioned rethinking that the notion of gathering the notion of circulation, how you keep the population safe, and are there do the three of you have thoughts about that relationship between public space and public health that might inform how that the title basin is reimagined going forward, and this would I think be a focus that was perhaps not so central when the firms were initially engaged in and some of yes, but certainly it's on everyone's mind. Yes, it's an add on that given that the proposals were being the meetings were happening pre pandemic, and the presentations were post pandemic. It's really writing, no pun intended it's writing the wave of this notion of public health and how it affects public space. Yeah, but I'm a landscape architect myself so I can say and and Nathan is there is, we're always thinking about that aspect even before the pandemic but now especially afterwards, especially around the title basin because we have this cherry blossom madness that happens every spring, where 10 and a half million people show up within a week's time, just to see these blossoms, and they're all, you know, huddle together on the edge of the title basin on these narrow pathways, hanging off the trees and trampling the roots. And so, we've got a problem there to begin with because, and the park services. So, has his task with the burden of trying to keep everyone safe last year and again this year because people are still going to want to come. So, we're thinking of all kinds of virtual ways to do it, but that a lot of the designs, especially I think ggn's design is talking about expanding the experience and into the uplands a little bit more and creating more spaces that people want to enjoy so we're not all crushed on the edge, and it's spread out more along along the right one. And initially, that was done to have less wear and tear of people on the site, but post pandemic. It has another purpose of creating a kind of natural social distancing environment, another problem that it didn't initially intend to solve. I think that read Hildebrand was thinking about that right in the midst of the development of their scheme so you can see his Boston Globe article in May I think about the value of parks in any sort of pandemic situation, and their scheme and their rambulation, you know walking fits nicely into that, though I think all of the schemes have that as a as a central theme. So like Teresa saying landscape architects have had this in mind but this is just put a point on it recently. Okay, should we open it up to questions it's about 17 after six. 15 minutes for questions. And I think Sarah dead there she is. The question, the question, I have so many questions has been amazing. Okay, so we have a few questions from the audience that I would like to get to the first one is, did any of the proposals incorporate an incremental response intervention to future flooding. And I think we're getting botanical habitats that were suited to advancing and retreating ties, ambitious landscaping. Maybe you can speak to that a little bit and some of the, the proposals we received. Yeah, so I had the pleasure of watching the title based on fold is one of the advisors. In the early meetings in April, it was wonderful to see GG and scheme, where they looked very closely at a timeline of the development of their idea, starting with the, the, the cuts bridge cuts bridge, and how that could be the first, the first time we were talking about holding back water and working gradually outward towards the river. So, I think it's, it's an element of, of most of the schemes but, and it's, you know, it's par for the course for landscape architects to be thinking about, about time and and how it takes to develop projects. Yeah, Tom and I are not landscape architects but what we noticed was not only thinking big and regionally, but also thinking over long spans of time, something which architects tend not to do they tend to design for the building to be photographed of walk away, and they tend to think more of the specific building. So that was, we were struck by that dimension of all the proposals, and ggn was the most advanced and it's thinking about that it actually posited a 70 year timeline. Yeah, which is wonderful. I mean it happens in architecture to look at the cathedrals and, you know, National Cathedral 83 years under construction, and these places but landscape the thing is, there is no finish date right. Right. Okay. Here's another question we touched on this but will be designing the title basin, alleviate the flood risk to the rest of the national mall, particularly the museums. That's a Teresa question I don't know. There's a Teresa. Have we lost her. We seem to have lost Teresa. I think you may have lost Teresa. You could repeat it just quickly the question. Sure. Except I just put it as answered well will the title any redesigning the title basin alleviate flood risk to the rest of the national mall. We depend on the proposal you pick right. Yeah, one of the things that that is sort of a slow emerge out of all the concepts that that I've been talking with Teresa about is the idea of essentially shifting the levy, which now runs along the north side of the reflecting pool and and then connects with the mound than the existing mound that the Washington Monument sits on. But bringing that forward and connecting it to the Lincoln Memorial Hill which of course is constructed in the middle of the river is one idea that seems to be coming through. So it would be raising a levy along East Potomac Park is a possible concept. Yeah, and I can speak to that a little bit that's definitely been a theme we've seen in a number of the proposals because right now, where levees have been thought about in DC, don't protect the title basin and largely don't protect resources under the National Park Services purview. So using the title basin which was created as a piece of infrastructure to be yet another piece of infrastructure to prevent flooding is an interesting component of this. Also some of the schemes from what I can remember. Get get rid of Independence Avenue and make it a walking path. So that would create a more seamless path from the title basin to the national mole. There'd be less of a road barrier. That's right. Here's another question. How much time and change, how much time does anyone on the panel estimate there is going to be needed for policy proposals, selection of a designer, more importantly obtaining funding to do this work and develop the title basin. And this person said I worked on Constitution Avenue for 36 years, and when many periodic flooding events do we have 70 years. That's part of your closest to the team. I don't think we have 70 years because, as we all know sea level rise is imminent and only increasing unfortunately. So I think it's a combination of long term planning and incremental planning and phasing an approach but ensuring we're looking at the title basin holistically and not just fixing a seawall here and a levy there so there's something larger but really thinking about the place in the long term but facing our approach as well. Nothing's easy at the title basin. That's why it's a fun project. What might be the first step of the many steps over time. Well, I think there's a lot of attention right now to the seawall itself of the title basin because it is crumbling. And there's major subsidence at the site. So that that's going to be a cool piece to do major work at the title basin. But what we don't want to happen is just to be sort of band aid approaches to to the site we want to we want to think big and we want to think long term we perhaps need to think about a 70 year scale, but be thoughtful and comprehensive about about the work we do and how they how how it will all tie together. Okay, let's see. All right, I like this one. I might have to answer this one though to power design firms, whose ideas are presented here being compensated, they're making great contributions and we need to me need to make sure they survive as businesses. Well, I can tell you they were compensated they probably did more work than we paid them to do, but we were able to offer a stipend to all the firms for their work. The project is underwritten by the American Express. That's right, which provided funding for all the, but you're probably right. Given the elaborate nature of the presentation the thought that went into them, and the animations that were created. They probably went beyond what they were coming. Yes, and I hope I can speak for the firms that in general they really welcome to this project, because it wasn't a design competition which they're so often involved in this really was a collaborative forum to exchange thoughts and ideas and hopes and dreams without the constraints of all of the various review processes we've talked about today. So I think it was a fun intellectual exercise, as well as an effort to lay the groundwork for real major change at this national site so I'm hopeful that it was rewarding in more ways than financially. Okay, I think we have time for maybe another question or two. All right, Sarah this one's for you, you may see it on the Q&A. Sarah, can you please talk more about Section 106 regarding how preservation law can counteract preservation proposals. Yeah, so Section 106 is the federal law part of the National Historic Preservation Act that requires a review when there is a federal agency project that meets a certain standard that's called an undertaking and there's a definition for that. This would certainly constitute an undertaking under Section 106. The review process entails, it's considered a stop looking listen provision, it entails the agency looking at how their project will affect historic properties. There's an adverse effect that the agency has to make completely sure through its review that the adverse effect essentially is warranted by the circumstances. If you look at how that provision has been interpreted over the years, you can probably predict that there will be a finding of an effect and there will be a finding of adverse effect. So the question at that point, it's actually kicked over to the agency, as well as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the DC State Historic Preservation Office to kind of come together and see if they can agree on a path forward. So if we assume that any of these proposals or anything that's proposed would have an adverse effect on the property as it was designated as on the National Registers National Landmark, then then the agencies would go through that process. Well, you know, the legal side, but the interpretive side I think is going to be really important here. And again, it's going to come down to the way that those entities come together and decide whether there is enough here to warrant the adverse effect on historic properties or enough here to justify it as such that the Section 106 process can be concluded without let's say litigation or perhaps a decision not to do the project at all. So the Section 106 review is going to be critically important, but also what's going to be critically important is how the agencies interpret the finding of adverse effect and the path forward. So this is again, I think we're going to have to look to the new administration to see how exactly they're going to treat historic preservation law in this new future when we have challenges known challenges like this one that are coming because of climate change. So we'll see to be determined. Yes. Well, thank you to all of you we're almost out of time. So I think we've answered the majority of the questions just wanted to thank the panelists for that great conversation and thank you to to our participants for your very smart questions as well. Before we wrap up just a little bit of information about upcoming programs with forum. Keep talking this has been a great conversation you can continue that on forum on form connect. It is free and open to everyone we have a number of conversations going on there it's quite great way to meet like minded people and have some great discussions. And don't forget to take advantage of additional upcoming webinars if you're not zoomed out to join us tomorrow at 3pm for a webinar on historic preservation advocacy in the 117th Congress. On the 24th, we'll have our third of four title basin webinars, and that will be on memorials and controversy and we'll have a really great discussion and panel for for that. And that's it. Thank you to everyone who attended really appreciate you all. Okay. We'll keep talking. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much for being on the website and add to the website. If you'd like, there's a yes, we want, we want you to visit and and and do the survey so we know what opportunities to participate and advocate for the title basin on the website. All right, thank you all. All right, thank you. Good evening. Thank you. Thank you all.