The Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool is now filled with 6.75 million gallons of water and fitted with a state-of-the-art nanobubbler filtration system, but the $14.2 million renovation is drawing decidedly mixed reactions from visitors to Washington DC's iconic landmark.
The 2,000-foot pool, which the president said would cost $1.8 million before the project spiraled to more than seven times that amount, displays a blue color specified in the renovation plans. Some early visitors expressed disappointment with the visual result.
Days after the pool was filled, workers were spotted scraping algae from the bottom of the basin. A spokesperson for the US Department of the Interior characterized the algae as residual material from the supply lines during the eight-week construction period, calling it "part of the normal startup process." She pointed to the new nanobubbler system as equipment that would prevent future algae buildup.
Public sentiment split between those who found the work impressive and those underwhelmed by the outcome. One New Zealand resident living in the DC area told CNN she was impressed by how it reflected light. But a Washington resident questioned both the escalating costs and whether the final product looked noticeably different from before.
The project's contractor selection process has attracted scrutiny. Trump steered the no-bid contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings Ltd, a Virginia company that had previously worked on his golf resort but has no track record with government projects. In April, Trump explained his reasoning by describing a personal recommendation from someone skilled at pool work who had approached him about the opportunity.
The president later defended the renovation's scope and durability, characterizing it as a highly sophisticated application of industrial-strength material applied by skilled workers rather than a simple paint job. He said the work was designed to last a century.
Author James Rodriguez: "A $14.2 million makeover with a blue pool and algae scrapers on day three raises fair questions about both the execution and the judgment call on that no-bid contract."
Comments