Ocean-water pool is part of Waikiki Natatorium restoration EIS

Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 10, 2019
By Gordon Y.K. Pang

Ocean-water pool is part of Waikiki Natatorium restoration EIS

DENNIS ODA / NOV. 2018 – The option of tearing down the bulk of the Waikiki War Memorial Natatorium structure and creating a “war memorial beach” is projected at $35.2 million, including construction of a new parking area and replacement of the Ocean Safety and Lifeguard Services Division office. The preferred option of rehabilitating the open circulation salt-water pool, at far left, would cost about $31.8 million, including contingency, construction management and engineering, according to the three-volume EIS.

The long debate over the future of the Waikiki War Memorial Natatorium may finally be over.

The deteriorating facility — opened in 1927 as a monument to Hawaii residents who served during World War I, but closed in 1979 due to disrepair — would be rehabilitated by the city as an operational, open circulation saltwater pool, according to the city’s preferred “perimeter deck” option outlined in the final Environmental Impact Statement released to the public Friday.

If the project goes forward, the Honolulu City Council would need to approve a special use permit and any city funding for it.

The construction price tag is projected at $31.8 million, including contingency, construction management and engineering, according to the three-volume EIS. Cost of operations and maintenance is projected at $967,000 annually for “periodic maintenance, minor repairs, a groundskeeper, lifeguards, utilities and miscellaneous supplies,” the study said. A staff of 15 is projected, including lifeguards.

Funding source remains a question mark. A public-private partnership and/or nonprofit fundraising “to either help develop or sustain the operations of the Natatorium are recognized as a reasonable assumption,” the report said.

The capital cost for the preferred option is anticipated to be less than that of two other, long-discussed options.

Tearing down the bulk of the structure and creating a “war memorial beach” is projected at $35.2 million, including construction of a new parking area and replacement of the Ocean Safety and Lifeguard Services Division office, now located in the Natatorium structure. Annual operations and maintenance under that scenario would cost $356,000.

On the other end of the spectrum, restoring the Natatorium’s original closed-pool system is projected at $42.7 million with annual operations and maintenance estimated at $1.13 million.

Caldwell said Saturday that he continues to prefer the beach option because of the need for beach space and “because I think salt-water swimming pools are a thing of the past.” But costs and other factors led to the administration’s decision to make the perimeter deck option the preferred alternative in the final EIS.

He gave no timetable for completing the project, but said he expects his administration will include money for planning and design in the fiscal 2021 budget.

“It’s going to be a long timeline because it’s a very complex process we have to follow, in part because it’s on the Historic Register. The process has to be done very carefully and thoughtfully and I think it’s going to take some time, but I think the process has to begin because, for 50 years, the Natatorium has been decaying because of people’s inability to make decisions — politicians and others,” he said. “It shows great disrespect for those whose names are on the memorial … and its shows disrespect for the people who use this park and celebrate the great outdoors out there.”

The best way to combat a curse is not properly treated, cialis prices it grows to infect all parts of the mind, body, and soul. Testosterone therapy is another widely prescribed treatment for erectile viagra uk sale dysfunction. The effective pill of Kamagra works well by damaging the cialis discount generic cancer cells. Also you will see that the pill is extremely cheap so one can afford it completely. click for more info viagra online india pills are supposed to be eaten up an hour or probably 45 minutes before they start having sex.

The conclusion in the final EIS is not surprising. A draft EIS release in November 2018 stated a preference for the perimeter deck plan at what was then projected to cost $25.6 million.

But it’s a big reversal from Caldwell’s position on the issue in 2013, when he stood with then-Gov. Neil Abercrombie to announce a partnership to develop a public memorial beach. The city intended to tear down the pool, relocate the archway and create a new beach where the crumbling pool and stadium now stand at a cost of $18.4 million in 2015 dollars. Full restoration was then projected to cost $69.4 million.

The 2013 plan was supported by the Kaimana Beach Coalition and criticized by Friends of the Natatorium.

In 2015, the city announced it was holding up the EIS process to consider an option between a full tear-down and complete restoration at the request of the State Historic Preservation Division.

In 2016, the National Trust for Historic Preservation released a plan it commissioned that would replace the swim basin’s seawalls with individual chevrons that would allow seawater to circulate in and out of the pool. A representative for the National Trust said the organization would work with local stakeholders on a fundraising campaign if its plan was accepted.

On Saturday, Maurice “Mo” Radke, president of Friends of the Natatorium, said he was happy that the final EIS was out at the start of Veterans Day weekend, and that he expects lots of discussion about it at Monday’s American Legion sponsored commemoration at 11 a.m.

The Friends group has tried for decades to get the Natatorium restored and Radke noted that funding had even been put aside by the city at one point under former Mayor Jeremy Harris.

Radke said he expects both the Friends and National Trust would help with efforts to raise funds for the project, a job that would be made easier if the city gives stronger indications it is committed to restoration. “We couldn’t cultivate anyone because the (previous) proposed option was demolition,” he said. “Who’s going to participate in the demolition of a war memorial?”

He emphasized, however, “there has to be a mechanism in place to be able to receive funds and figure out a way for the city to use those funds.”

The 2019 plan calls for the pool deck to be reconstructed on support piles that would surround the pool at approximately 4 feet above the water’s surface at low tide and 3 feet at high tide. Because there would be a free flow of water between the ocean and the pool, it doesn’t need to meet state Department of Health swimming pool requirements.

Jim Bickerton, an attorney for the Kaimana Beach Coalition, said there are significant dangers tied to the use of a pile-and-grate system. “They forget that current is intended to flow through the grates,” he said.

“The point is a grate lets the current keep going, a wall bounces the current back. So people end up getting pinned against these bars under water — and (the city’s) response is signage,” Bickerton said. “As a tort lawyer, I can tell you that this is going to be a major liability for the city but just as a citizen, it’s a safety issue. These are people going into the pool because it seems safer than the ocean but it’s more dangerous.”

Bickerton said the final EIS is the first acknowledgment by the city that a public- private partnership is likely going to be needed. “Our biggest concern and fear is that one last little sliver of daylight for the public is going to be closed off again by commercial interests because the city cannot tell us that this will be free, open space 24/7 like a beach park is. They’re going to have to close it off for commercial purposes and as time goes by, it will be used more and more and there will be less and less access and parking for people who just need to get into the ocean.”

Caldwell said he believes the project can become reality either with or without a private partner.

“I think it’s way too early to talk about what a public- private partnership would look like,” he said. “It’s going to take some real vetting, sitting down and talking with stakeholders on all levels — the Council, the executive branch, the neighbors in that community, the historic preservation guys and the people who use the beach.”

Councilman Tommy Waters, whose district includes Waikiki and the Natatorium, said he wants to hear from constituents before weighing in with his opinion. “I have a few questions … especially as it relates to swimmer safety,” he said.

Waters said he’s hoping to hold a hearing on the issue either in the community or at Honolulu Hale. “I’m looking forward to a lively discussion with my community weighing the three options,” he said.

Kaimana Beach Coalition Comments on the Draft EIS

December 26, 2018

COMMENTS OF KAIMANA BEACH COALITION AND JAMES J. BICKERTON
ON DRAFT EIS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT AT
WAIKIKI WAR MEMORIAL NATATORIUM

 

In my capacity as attorney for Kaimana Beach Coalition (“KBC”) submitting these comments in its behalf, and also in my own individual capacity, I James J. Bickerton, hereby these public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Waikiki War Memorial Complex concerning the War Memorial Beach option, as described in the DEIS (“beach option”), which KBC strongly supports, as well as the proposed action of the City and County of Honolulu with a 2500 seat stadium attached to a perimeter deck (“the stadium & deck option”), which KBC opposes. These comments are submitted in conformance with the requirements of chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and chapter 11-200, Hawaii Administrative Rules.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

KBC is an unincorporated community organization. KBC and its members have direct, substantial interests in the natural resources of the shoreline area proposed for the beach and stadium & deck options which are distinguishable from those of the general public. Established by Honolulu residents in 1990, KBC seeks to protect the area from commercialization and environmental degradation for present and future generations. KBC members live, work, and recreate in and around the shoreline area and rely on, use, or seek to use these resources for a host of uses related to ocean and beach recreation, including but not limited to swimming, snorkeling, surfing, sunbathing, and other forms of recreation, as well as aesthetic enjoyment. Sierra Club v. DOT, 115 Haw. 299 (Haw. 2007). Further, KBC and its members believe that the stadium & deck option will bring commercialization and environmental degradation to the shoreline area, and that CCH’s failure to follow through on its stated commitment to pursue the beach option will meaningfully harm the interests of KBC and its members.

James J. Bickerton is not only the attorney for KBC but is also an individual recreational user of Kaimana Beach, who has used the public parking, public beach access and public shoreline at Kaimana Beach for over 40 years, who continues to use it on a regular basis, and who expects that he and his children and their children will use it in the future for those purposes. Thus, in addition to submitting them on behalf of KBC, James J. Bickerton also submits these comments as his own individual comments.

INCORPORATION OF PRIOR COMMENTS

These comments incorporate by reference prior comments made KBC and its members and representatives in the Chapter 343 process for this matter. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the e-mail comments on the Final Environmental Assessment/EIS Preparation Notice submitted by KBC (Rick Bernstein) dated June 4, 2014, comments provided by KBC (Rick Bernstein and Jim Bickerton) as reflected in the “HRS 6E Focus Group Meeting Summary” dated June 27, 2016, and KBC information provided pursuant to and reflected in the Oct. 2018 Waikiki War Memorial Complex Cultural Impact Assessment.

EIS ADEQUACY

Based upon an initial review, it appears that the DEIS fails to adequately assess the environmental impacts of the stadium & deck option for purposes of compliance with Chapter 343. The DEIS must set forth sufficient information to enable the decision maker to make a reasoned decision after balancing harms and benefits and to make a reasoned choice among alternatives. Life of Land v. Ariyoshi, 59 Haw. 156 (Haw. 1978); Price v. Obayashi State Corp., 81 Haw. 171 (Haw. 1996). Acceptance by the accepting agency requires a formal determination that the DEIS adequately describes identifiable environmental impacts, and satisfactorily responds to comments received during the review of the statement. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343-2.

ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL FUNCTION OF EACH PROPOSAL

Any environmental impact statement cannot only weigh the cost of its construction or the environmental impacts of its initial development alone. Instead, the actual function of the project and the uses to which is designed to be put must be analyzed. The stadium & deck option is the restoration of a 2500 seat stadium adjacent to a contained body of water (sea surface waves and swell are reduced or eliminated by the enclosure) bordered by a pool deck. In such a project one cannot focus solely on the pool function, but must also focus on the function of the stadium bleachers and the large number of seats they provide. If each facility is used in accordance with its designed function, then without a doubt, the 2500 seat bleachers will have a significantly different effect on the environment than the public beach park and sandy shoreline that is entailed in the beach option. The DEIS does not analyze how choosing a 2500 seat stadium as the design option will have different impacts on traffic, parking and public shoreline access than the beach option. Yet such an analysis must be central to any proper DEIS. This failing is even worse than we saw in the Superferry case, where the project proponents focused solely on the immediate physical effects of construction, rather than on the intended use and function of the ferry system and thus the environmental impacts that would follow long term from implementing a ferry system. [1]

If the bleachers are merely intended for decoration and will not be used for their designed function, there should be analysis of whether it is consistent with Chapter 343 to propose and construct a large 100-meter edifice on the shoreline that is simply to be looked at.

SEA LEVEL RISE

The DEIS fails to adequately assess sea level rise. The DEIS identifies SLR as an “unresolved issue.” DEIS at 6-2. The DEIS does not adequately discuss capital costs. The DEIS states that the capital cost for construction of the stadium & deck option “does not include structural adjustments for SLR.” DEIS at 3-23. Nor does the DEIS adequately discuss physical destruction of the Natatorium from SLR. The DEIS states only that SLR could increase to 3.2 feet by 2060 and “overtopping of the makai side of the pool would become more frequent, likely increasing the rate of damage to the structure.” DEIS at 4-49. In addition, the discussion of SLR impacts in the DEIS does not appear to comply with CCH’s “Sea Level Rise Guidance” (June 5, 2018). Recommendations under this guidance direct all CCH departments and agencies to use 3.2 feet of SLR in capital improvement decisions.

DOH POOL RULES

It also has some side effects as well. free tadalafil When you are searching for a drug that claims cialis soft 20mg to have little promotional activities. After running to the doctor’s office, taking the bunch of the tests you were told discount bulk viagra that you have biliary dyskinesia. “Biliary” means it is related to the bile, “dys” means abnormal and “kinesia” means movement. The severity of Erectile dysfunction There are numerous causes of ED like lack of blood flow in the penis. viagra australia no prescription http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Logan.pdf The DEIS fails to adequately assess this issue. The stadium & deck option creates a “swimming pool” within the meaning of the pool rules. Under section 11-10-2, Hawaii Administrative Rules, “Swimming pool” means “any man-made enclosure, structure, basin, chamber, or tank containing an artificial body of water that is used for swimming, diving, or recreational bathing or therapy by humans.” The stadium & deck option creates a “man-made enclosure” that is used for “swimming, diving, or recreational bathing or therapy by humans.” The body of water is “artificial” and “contained” because the open ocean is “natural,” and the enclosure separates and divides the artificial pool from the natural open ocean waters, restricting the normal movement of waves and swells. Thus, the stadium & deck option must comply with the “public saltwater specialty swimming pool” rules to protect public health and safety. The DEIS contains meeting minutes and correspondence in Appendix A involving the Department of Health related to this matter. These documents fail to provide a sufficiently detailed discussion of the factual or legal basis for this conclusion. In addition, a Circuit Court judge previously ruled that similar pool restoration plans constituted a swimming pool subject to Department of Health regulation. DEIS at 3-22. The DEIS does not adequately address whether and to what extent the court’s rationale applies equally to the stadium & deck option.

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

The stadium & deck option appears likely to foster commercial activities at the Natatorium. The DEIS fails to adequately assess the environmental impacts from commercial activities. The DEIS contains brief references to potential “income producing ventures” and events at the site, use of “floating docks” for “concerts,” and the potential for user or entrance fees. DEIS at 1-10 to 1-11. The DEIS fails to assess the environmental impacts from these and other anticipated commercial activities. For example, the DEIS asserts there would be no significant impact to transportation from the stadium & deck option. DEIS at 4-25. The validity of this determination cannot be known absent assessment of impacts from commercial activities. Similarly, the DEIS asserts there would be no significant noise impact from the stadium & deck option. DEIS at 4-29. This also cannot be known without assessing noise impacts from commercial activities. In addition, the DEIS also appears to improperly segment environmental review of the stadium & deck option from environmental review of the commercial activities that will come with the stadium & deck option. Haw. Admin. Rules § 11-200-7. It is no response to state that “plans have not yet been made for activities’ or “we don’t yet know what shape the activities will take.” Any project must have a proposed function. If the developers are too coy to state it (and even if they are not), any proper analysis must, as noted above, look at the capacity and capabilities of the design of each project and assume that those capacities will be used. Where a project’s main physical bulk is a 2500-seat stadium, it must be assumed that it will be used as a stadium.

WATER QUALITY

The DEIS appears to omit any discussion of either the impact on water quality of (1) the construction of the stadium and deck option or (2) the ongoing use of the facility as a public swimming venue. As to (1) it appears that there are nearly 100 years of anaerobic sedimentary silt on the bottom of the Natatorium and that the stadium and deck option contemplates that numerous piles will be driven into this sediment. There is no analysis of the impact of this construction activity on water quality in Waikiki or its impact on the adjacent marine habitat (which include intake waters for the Waikiki Aquarium).

As to (2) there is no analysis in the DEIS of the health impacts from bacteria-caused staph infections associated with use of the pool created by the stadium & deck option. The DEIS concludes that the stadium & deck option will cause beach closures due to sediment escaping the pool. Use of the pool will also cause increased turbidity and reduced water quality in the pool. DEIS at 4-60. The DEIS fails to adequately assess the risk to human health and safety from the sediment. In Carreira v. Territory, 40 Haw. 513 (1954), parents filed suit against the government for the drowning death of their son at the Natatorium.[2] The court noted that “it was impossible to see the bottom of the pool because the silt of the natural bottom was stirred up by the swimmers.” The DEIS does not assess the likelihood of similar adverse public health impacts from the stadium & deck option.

PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

Each potential use eliminates others. A stadium being used as a stadium will eliminate or significantly reduce parking and beach access for users who wish to use the shoreline recreationally both at the Natatorium itself and in immediately available shoreline access areas.   The stadium and deck option appears to have a main entrance and gate, with the bleachers serving as a barrier to shoreline access; access to the shoreline will be only through the narrow portal, if it is open. The DEIS has no analysis of the hours of operation of this facility and whether it will be open to the pubic for recreational use for all the same hours and all the same days as other adjacent shoreline areas, and fails to analyze the impact on public shoreline access of restoring rather than removing a large physical barrier to shoreline access. Chapter 343 and Chapters 205 and 205A all require analysis of these issues.

Moreover, the DEIS fails to properly or correctly weigh the value of a public beach and the concomitant public access to the shoreline that it provides, particularly given that the City has granted building permits for thousands of condominiums adjacent to the other heavily-used by local residents recreational shoreline in Honolulu — Ala Moana Park ­­– thus already congesting and limiting local residents’ access to and use of the public shoreline in that area. The DEIS does not analyze how much shoreline access is being reduced in Honolulu already, even as population numbers increase, and thus fail completely to properly weight the impact of the stadium and deck option against a public beach option in terms of the impact on shoreline access for Honolulu residents.

MAINTENANCE ISSUES

The stadium and deck option describes a system of mesh or grids that would limit larger marine lifeforms entering the Natatorium but permit water exchange. There is no discussion in the DEIS of the technology for such a mesh system, the material it will be made of, whether it will serve as a matrix for the growth of marine organisms, whether there will be cleaning of the growth required and whether that cleaning and maintenance will involve any chemicals being used in the ocean. Given that earlier versions of this project also purported to be open the sea and to exchange water but ultimately failed when marine organisms (seaweed, algae, shellfish, moss, etc.) clogged the exchange openings, it is imperative that the long-term viability of the mesh system, and whether it will stimulate new organism growth and/or require cleaning or chemical treatment, (or will disintegrate and lead to pollution) should all have been considered, weighed and reported on.

EIS QUALITY AND FAIRNESS

An EIS draws its meaning from “the conscientious application of the EIS process as a whole, and shall not be merely a self-serving recitation of benefits and a rationalization of the proposed action.” Haw. Admin. Rules § 11-200-14. The DEIS too often deviates from this standard. For example, the DEIS states that beach option would result in the “permanent loss” of a historical landmark and the “removal” of a memorial. However, the beach option would be named the “War Memorial Beach” and it would retain the memorial stone, plaque and archway (and forego the 2500-seat bleachers). The DEIS also assesses the cost and environmental impacts of the beach option as including, in addition to the beach, the construction of a new administrative office on park land, which could be located not on park land and which could be budgeted separately from the beach option. Similarly, the DEIS ties the beach option to a new parking lot on park land, which also could be located elsewhere.

[1] In the Superferry case, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that “The exemption [from having to prepare an EIS] was erroneously granted as DOT considered only the physical improvements to Kahului harbor in isolation and did not consider the secondary impacts on the environment that may result from the use of the Hawaii Superferry in conjunction with the harbor improvements.” Sierra Club v. DOT, 115 Haw. 299, 343 (2007). While we at least have an EIS here, it is no less defective than an exemption ruling if it similarly fails to conduct the required analysis of secondary impacts from how the project will actually be used.

[2] Interestingly, the Natatorium sits on State land, which is merely under the City’s control because of an executive order by the Governor. The DEIS makes no analysis of whether the City is spending resources on land it does not own and that can be removed from its control with the stroke of pen, nor whether the City will actually have the ownership authority needed to mitigate environmental impacts.

Sincerely,
James J. Bickerton, Esq.

The Conversation: Friday, December 21st, 2018 (Excerpt)

Hawaii Public Radio: The Conversation
December 21, 2018
By Catherine Cruz

The fishing vessel Pacific Paradise ran aground off the coast of Waikiki in 2017. It was stuck in place for 58 days. CREDIT NOAA

 

Transcribed with quotes emphasized by the Kaimana Beach Coalition.

Catherine Cruz: Just days before deadline for public input, we’re learning more about the preferred alternative to the future of the Waikiki War Memorial Natatorium. State Health Director Bruce Anderson, who grew up swimming in the pool, talks to us about his concerns about the proposed deck. Shoring the structure up may mean driving scores of pilings 65 feet into the reef, and he has concerns about silt in the pool affecting the marine conservation district next door.

“Even the swimmers I know who swam in the Olympics said it was hard to swim there and they could never see the bottom.”

Finding a certified local Chiropractor Virginia Beach is so easy to do cialis online with the help of the Internet. This diversion in the body phenomenon discount generic viagra affects the sugar level up to large extent as insulin becomes unable to absorb laser light, or unable to adequately respond to absorbed light, no stimulation of hair regrowth will occur.” What should be noted is LLLT therapists report that use of this therapy in conjunction with minoxidil (Rogaine and other brands) or finasteride (Propecia) typically yields more effective results. The condition comprises an unhealthy lifestyle and genetic history. tadalafil 10mg You cialis no prescription can also safeguard your privacy through online purchase.
Bruce Anderson: In the past we’ve had concerns about water quality and safety at the pool. It was proposed as [an] enclosed swimming pool much the way it was when it was first constructed and even then problems with water quality, turbidity, was always high from sediments being stirred up in the pool. I remember swimming there as a kid, and we never saw the bottom. In fact it was just a murky, murky pool, and the slide and the platforms were what attracted most of the kids and others to the area. It truly was a nice venue for getting together and enjoying those activities, but it never was a great swimming venue. Even the swimmers I know who swam in the Olympics said it was hard to swim there and they could never see the bottom. Of course it wouldn’t be sanctioned as a competitive pool these days, given that all those pools are freshwater. Saltwater has a different buoyancy and wouldn’t be appropriate.

In any event, getting back to the most current proposal, it does [address] some of the issues as it relates to water quality. We wouldn’t worry as much about staph infections, it does allow for some open circulation, actually it’s an elevated pool deck, which allows for water to pass underneath the deck and refresh water in the pool. Part of the biggest problem in the past probably would remain and that is the accumulation of sediment. The pool acts as a sediment catchment basin – the turbid water gets into that area, it’s calm and all the solids settle out and you get a layer a sediment over the years. In fact, even over the first year or so the pool was in operation originally it started accumulating and continue[d] throughout the time the pool was there. I see this as an ongoing issue – it will be very hard to clean out the sediment and it naturally will occur, there’s nothing anyone can do about that. It gets stirred up by the surf and comes in and then settles, and that’s the way everything works, except that it can’t go anywhere because it’s settling into a basin that would collect the sediment over time, it would be suspended any time it was agitated, which is what happened in the past.

So that’s the biggest issue. It does not meet our pool rule definition. That was a key issue, we do have specific rules for saltwater swimming pools which would require among other things that you should be able to see a disc at the bottom of the pool, that would be very difficult with the original proposal. And it’s hard to know whether that would have been a problem here. The reason for that is you need to recover someone if they sink before they drown. In fact there were some, at least one death at the old natatorium because they couldn’t find the individual until it was too late. So being able to see the bottom is a key safety issue, but as far was water quality goes it should meet the coastal water quality standards, no reason to think it wouldn’t. That would be just as safe to swim there as it would at Kaimana but the turbidity issue is still gonna be a problem as I see it, I think they’re gonna need to think through that.

And I would also question its utility. It’s a variant of the old pool that [makes] it difficult to swim. I’m not sure exactly how it’s going to be constructed, but they talked about bars around the perimeter of the pool, which would be presumably to keep sharks and other things that you don’t want in the pool out of the pool, and they would allow for water to be circulating. But that seems to be a safety issue in my mind, but that’s for others to best determine.

“I remember I actually learned to swim at Kaimana Beach, and the reason for that was it was too dangerous too learn how to swim in the pool.”

There are some issues that need to be looked at, but the key issue for many was whether or not it would meet our swimming pool rule definition, and it does not, and therefore would not be subject to the very stringent standards we have for public swimming pools. It’s a very large pool, and even when we had hundreds of kids swimming there, school children and others swam there regularly – it would be hard to keep track of where everyone was at any one time. And the problem with a pool where you can’t see the bottom, is if someone gets in trouble and sinks, you’re not going to see them and be able to recover them in time. So lifeguards would certainly help to minimize the risk, but it would still be there, and again I would question the utility of the pool. I remember I actually learned to swim at Kaimana Beach, and the reason for that was it was too dangerous too learn how to swim in the pool. And finally after we learned how to swim in the ocean we would have our time in the pool. And we [were] watched very carefully and by then we were able to swim confidently and as far as I know no one got in trouble during those last days of your swimming lessons, but it was not a nice venue for swimming as it was – I had one other item that I think might need to be considered, and that is talking to Bruce Carlson (Director of the Waikiki Aquarium from 1985 to 2002 – KBC) and some of the others who ran the aquarium, that’s where they go to catch box jellyfish, they could almost always find them there. They apparently settled to the bottom and they come up during the full moon, and as we all know, I think it’s 6, 7, 8 days, I can’t remember exactly when after the full moon, they’re up on the surface where they may get into contact with people swimming. But box jellyfish might be an issue, I don’t remember them being a problem when the pool was used regularly, but things have changed since then. (there is increasing evidence linking box jellyfish abundance to climate change – KBC)

“…it’s full of sand and sediment, and I can’t see that not continuing to be an issue, it’s going to be a huge maintenance problem even if it’s a soft bottom with beach sand, you’re going to have sediment on top of the sand, and there’s no way to avoid that.”

All sorts of things I think need to be investigated more thoroughly and obviously we need to look at alternatives as well, but this pool is not going to violate any of the pool rules that we have because it simply doesn’t meet the definition of a public swimming pool. When you look at the existing pool now, although it hasn’t been maintained in decades, it’s full of sand and sediment, and I can’t see that not continuing to be an issue, it’s going to be a huge maintenance problem even if it’s a soft bottom with beach sand, you’re going to have sediment on top of the sand, and there’s no way to avoid that. That’s going to happen naturally. And I don’t know how you could possibly remove that material. I can’t think of any mechanical way you could do it that would be effective.

CC: So it’s just gonna spread out in that area?

BA: Yeah, and again the risk from a safety standpoint is that silt gets resuspended, that’s what happened when people were swimming there in the past, you get hundreds of kids in there and others and they agitate the sediment and it would get suspended in the water column and it was a murky green pool, like pea soup some days. But that’s probably what will happen again, maybe not to the same extent, but it certainly is an issue that planners need to think about.

CC: Apparently the proposal calls for putting pilings in along the reef?

BA: Well they have to suspend the pool deck somehow and I presume they’d be pounding down pilings and then suspending the deck on top of those.

CC: Anything from the Health Department perspective on that at all?

“The area’s under stress as it is and any construction activity there would have to implement very stringent measures to prevent any damage to corals and other marine life”

BA: Oh, they’d have to implement best management practices during any construction there, probably put in silk curtains to minimize the amount of sediment and construction debris that would be suspended in the area. The pool area, area around the pool is a marine protected area. It has the highest levels of protection. We were very concerned when that fishing vessel went aground last year and it sat there for many months and did have adverse impacts on corals and other things that are in the area. The area’s under stress as it is and any construction activity there would have to implement very stringent measures to prevent any damage to corals and other marine life that are – that’s in the vicinity.

The point is that area around the natatorium is a very important area from a marine protection standpoint, and any construction activity there would be scrutinized to be sure that it wasn’t adversely impacting [the] nearby environment.

CC: Anderson was also the acting administrator for the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Aquatics Division. He made reference to the fishing vessel Pacific Paradise that ran aground at Kaimana Beach last year. This month the Department of Land and Natural Resources recommended fining the boat owner more than 300,000 dollars because of the damage to the reef…

The Conversation: Remembering The Past and A Look To The Future Of Waikiki (Excerpts)

Hawaii Public Radio: The Conversation
December 20, 2018
By Catherine Cruz & Bill Dorman

CREDIT DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES


Transcribed with quotes emphasized by the Kaimana Beach Coalition.

Catherine Cruz: This is The Conversation on Hawaii Public Radio. I’m Catherine Cruz. You’re in for a treat today as we listen back to some of Hawaii’s history. Specifically we’re looking at Waikiki, its past, present, and future. Our guests include Dolan Eversole, a coastal geologist with the University of Hawaii’s Sea Grant college. He’s here to talk about managing our coastal resources as we face rising warming waters. And Andrew Rossiter, he’s been the Director of the Waikiki Aquarium since 2004 following long stints in Japan, Canada, and Africa. Welcome to you both.

Excerpt beginning at 21:50

“I’d be very, very cautious about doing pilings next to the aquarium because the vibrations that come from pilings will be transmitted through the ground and into the exhibits at the aquarium and fish are very, very sensitive to vibration, much much more so than humans.”

The man might respond with embarrassment or anger or he may viagra generika hop over to these guys state that he was over-aroused or stressed. This is the medicine that is made of Sildenafil viagra generika 50mg citrate. The Genetic Literacy Project also states the studies have linked genetically modified animal visit this buying levitra without prescription feed to severe stomach inflammation and uteri in pigs, as well as genetically modified corn to rat tumors. Belly fat is the cost of viagra toughest one to reduce and it is the one that related with several health issues.
CC: And Andrew, you were talking about the master plan for your facility, but right next to it is the Waikiki War Memorial Natatorium, and there we’re in the middle of discussing what it’s future is going to be like and we’ve got this draft EIS that’s out and I understand that part of the preferred alternative calls for shoring up the walls which includes I believe putting in pilings. So how are you looking at that?

Andrew Rossiter: I actually only heard about this yesterday. I’d be very, very cautious about doing pilings next to the aquarium because the vibrations that come from pilings will be transmitted through the ground and into the exhibits at the aquarium and fish are very, very sensitive to vibration, much much more so than humans.

CC: And as far as the tanks, I mean are they, were they built to withstand –

AR: The tanks [would] probably be structurally sound, but it’s the fish and the animals living inside them that I’d be most concerned about.

CC: OK. And you plan to weigh in on that?

AR: Yeah, now that I know about it, I will, yep.

CC: And I think that’s a concern, I think people just need to know what’s planned for that area, whether you’re talking about sea level rise, or warming temperatures in the ocean, what do we have planned and how do we deal with it?

Bill Dorman: And that idea, also Dolan that you were talking about earlier, about lessons learned from elsewhere, were not in isolation in terms of what is going on and that adaptability. What is to be learned in that area?

Dolan Eversole: Yeah, I guess I’m a glass half full kind of guy, similar to Andrew’s point about not looking at sea level rise as a challenge as much as an opportunity. It certainly has its challenges and we’ve done a lot of mapping on that. But there are [a] number of places around the world that have been dealing with sea level rise far longer than we have. Even places like Miami are well ahead of us in having to deal with what we call chronic erosion and nuisance flooding. So they’re having to deal with things like every high tide the streets flood, and it’s not the end of the world – they’re finding ways to deal with it. As far as a long term resilient community there are some challenges there of course. But they’re finding way to deal with it in the short term with pumping out systems and raising the elevation of streets.

There are some active discussions going on about how that would look in a place like Waikiki or Honolulu for that matter. Where we start this is probably in our most critical, high density areas like Waikiki and Kakaako where there’s tremendous amount of infrastructure already. As I said earlier, I’m more of an optimistic kind of guy. Looking at something like the rail coming in maybe is our opportunity to think more strategically about where subsurface utilities might go as that thing is built. Those are some of the opportunities that I see. One of the challenges that I see with respect to [the] ground water table coming right up right through the surface of the ground is we have our wastewater systems, storm drains, that are typically gravity fed, so they’re on a very low slope towards a forced main that pumps it toward a wastewater treatment facility. Well as sea level rises, those gravity-fed systems aren’t gonna work any more. So that’s probably one of the low-hanging fruit[s], is starting to think more carefully about our wastewater systems in high-density areas to start.

Those communities that are a little higher elevation as you get in that 6 to 8 to 10 feet above sea level, you’re probably OK for at least 100 years or so. But those that are really low elevation along the coast, think Kakaako, Waikiki, pretty much all of our urban corridor in Honolulu, they’re gonna be faced with starting to wrestle with these. I wish I had more specific examples that I could give you, that here’s a place that we’re looking carefully at. There is a lot of research going on right now, trying to look at what other communities are doing, and there’s a lot of attention being paid to that. So we’re certainly not ignoring it and trying to learn from others as things develop.

Excerpt beginning at 27:38

“…if the walls were to collapse or there was an issue the sediment would all be washed in a big plume from the natatorium right down to Waikiki, and on its way it would go over the marine protected area and probably kill everything there… it would be absolutely catastrophic”

CC: We are talking about Waikiki with Andrew Rossiter and Dolan Eversole and Bill Dorman, [HPR’s] News Director. And we were discussing the Waikiki Natatorium, since that project is in the throes of, what do we do, do we rebuild it, do we tear down the arch and rebuild it somewhere else and build a new beach. That’s [an] important point to talk about because it’s right next to your area, Andrew, and there’s concern apparently about silt and the turbidity, and the effect of some of that kicking up and affecting not only the beach on the other side but also your area.

AR: Yeah. The Natatorium has been essentially building up sediment over the past 50 so years. Some of the reports that I’ve read say it’s between 5 and 8 feet deep. The bottom layers of that [have] got no oxygen, it’s anoxic, it’s black, it’s probably got lots of toxins in it. And our concern is that if one of the walls were to collapse, or if they did the renovation improperly, the sea would be allowed to access the natatorium directly, and it would wash all of that sediment in a big plume in one direction, because the current there doesn’t actually come from off shore to one shore, it actually comes along the shore. And it goes from the natatorium towards Waikiki. So essentially if the walls were to collapse or there was an issue the sediment would all be washed in a big plume from the natatorium right down to Waikiki, and on its way it would go over the marine protected area and probably kill everything there.

CC: I mean that would be catastrophic.

AR: Oh, it would be absolutely catastrophic, yeah. And not only to the wildlife, but also to the tourist industry in Waikiki.

CC: And Dolan, what about issues relating to the sea level rise if you’re got a project there on the beach?

“…how long is [the] new restored natatorium intended to be there? If it’s a legacy piece of infrastructure that 100 years or more, that’s going to be a real challenge to keep it in place”

DE: Yeah, that’s a good question. A multimillion dollar question at that. I did look at the EIS for the natatorium and I’m pleased to say that they do at least acknowledge sea level rise in the environmental assessment. They don’t say specifically what they’re gonna do to accommodate sea level but they do reference the DLNR study that I mentioned earlier with respect to what’s been already documented for predictions for sea level rise, and they say that they will take provisions to accommodate up to 3.2 feet of sea level, which is what the state is recommending now for, at least conceptually, for new projects is to consider up to 3.2 feet of sea level. What that looks like in the final design is yet to be determined, but they’re at least acknowledging sea level in the report. It may be a simple matter of just raising the elevation of the perimeter walls that are proposed 2-3 feet to accommodate that, but it also gets to this question of, well how long is [the] new restored natatorium intended to be there? If it’s a legacy piece of infrastructure that 100 years or more, that’s going to be a real challenge to keep it in place, at least how it looks now. If it’s a 40 to 50 year type – most coastal infrastructure is designed to last about 50 years, seawalls and groins and things like that – 50 years in a general engineering lifetime. So 50 years we might be looking at about 3 to 4 feet of sea level rise, which is probably something that we could accommodate. Beyond that, it’s really hard to say what that area might look like.

CC: So engineering’s gonna be key.

AR: Yeah, I got firsthand experience of concrete and rebar structures built right next to the ocean. The aquarium is now 61-62 years old, so past the 50 year cutoff point, and it’s really shown its age.

DE: Yeah, and that’s common throughout Waikiki. We see a lot of the seawalls and structures that were built 50 to 80 years ago are really starting to deteriorate now at a more accelerated pace. Partly because they’re hitting that age, and partly because the water – the ocean levels have been unusually high the last several years. You mentioned the splash earlier, we’re seeing that throughout Waikiki, that things – the water level is unusually high, and we’ve all heard this term “king tides” now. That is a phenomena that is not a new phenomena, we just coined a new term for it – but it [has] been unusually on what I would call a temporary basis. So it’s – last, two summers ago it was almost a foot higher than it should have been, the water levels in Honolulu. That is going back down to near normal, but sea level is going to catch back up. And it’s going to look like that all the time in about 20-30 years.

Excerpt beginning at 43:22

“Even if [silt is] underneath the natatorium there will be seepage of nitrates, nitrites, into the natatorium water itself, which will probably precipitate large algae blooms and you’ll have a natatorium that is essentially bright green and cloudy in color.”

CC: Andrew, doesn’t the city have some kind of plan to also deal with an eroding – I don’t know if it was some kind of landscaping area abutting your aquarium?

AR: I don’t know what they’ve got planned over there, I just could ask Dolan. Are there any plans for artificial reefs to help buffer the effect of wave action?

DE: There aren’t any plans yet but there’s been some discussion about tying the beach restoration efforts to conservation efforts for the reef as well.

AR: I would jump in with that and say it would be a great opportunity to also reintroduce corals to some areas and see if they propagate there, and then if that succeeded the fish would colonize naturally and you’d get back up to something approaching what it used to be.

DE: Yeah, I’m glad you brought that up, this came up in a meeting recently with DLNR. These are challenging projects to try to kick off, but if we’re talking about a major engineering project, building new structures and things like that, typically what’s required from the Army Corps of Engineers is some form of what they call compensatory mitigation, so if you put rocks on even an algal reef, so a lot of the near shore reef in Waikiki is not a really pristine reef, is more of coralline algae, but it is a live reef, and if you have no other option than put rocks on it, you need to compensate through some form, and we’re thinking maybe a form of mitigation might be to do a reef restoration project nearby to mitigate the potential impact [to the] reef.

CC: We do have a call on the line, Rick [Bernstein] from Honolulu, do you have a question?

Rick Bernstein: Hi, yes. I have been studying the Environmental Impact Statement, and as you know there are two plans in play. One is the new beach plan, the other is the perimeter deck plan. Regarding that silt that Dr. Rossiter talked about earlier, that silt according to [the] environment impact statement study by sea engineering this year says that the silt will not only go in the other direction, it will also go into Kaimana Beach depending on which way the littoral drift is going that particular day. And upon occasion the beach will be closed, says this report. The environmental impact statement for the beach plan mitigates the silt by grading it, placing an environmental cover over it, covering that with gravel and then covering that with two feet of sand. The new perimeter deck plan has no budget nor any plan whatsoever for mitigating this silt, which will flow freely through grated walls into the ocean, so I think that’s really important and I’d like to hear Dr. Rossiter and Dolan’s ideas about that. Thank you.

CC: Who wants to take that?

DE: I guess I’ll take a stab at that. Thank you for the call, Rick. I think – the mitigation of the silt material that we’ve described as being several feet thick in the natatorium basin now is problematic. I think that is something that needs to be addressed. Allowing it to just freely flush out into the open ocean in the nearshore environment is not really – I don’t see how that’s not gonna have a big negative impact. It’s not the end of the world, there are ways to mitigate it as Rick mentioned for the beach design. There’s another analogy here with the Hilton Lagoon, the Duke Kahanamoku Lagoon. When they restored that, they simply put a geo – they didn’t remove it, they put a geotextile layer down and then they put sand on top of that. So there are ways you can mitigate it without it costing, you know, tens of millions of dollars. But I think there needs to be some more thought put into how we mitigate this fine silt, ’cause it is going to be a problem. If you have too much fine silt it can obviously smother the reef and cause all kinds of impacts to the near shore.

CC: So much for your reef restoration if there’s gonna be a major silt problem. Andrew?

AR: I just agree with everything Dolan has just said. Silt is and always will be a big problem unless it’s removed. Even if it’s underneath the natatorium there will be seepage of nitrates, nitrites, into the natatorium water itself, which will probably precipitate large algae blooms and you’ll have a natatorium that is essentially bright green and cloudy in color.

(Long silent pause)

CC: Interesting to think about projects that are on the drawing board right now and what we need to do and how to mitigate all these issues relating to protecting Waikiki.

BD: And the impacts really of not only the foreseen, but the unforeseen, dealing with issues of weather and change and storms, they may have impacts that we are not anticipating and – Andrew is seen nodding your head.

AR: Yeah, exactly. I think in projects like this it’s very important to get as many different perspectives as possible, because if you’re just a pure engineer, you’re looking at the physical structure. If you’re a biologist, you’re looking at something else. If you’re a geologist you’re looking at the substructure. But to get all these different perspectives together then you’ll get an overarching view of what to do right, what could go wrong, and how to resolve the issues.

BD: And is there a forum that you gentlemen are involved in that touches on that, or that is again looking to that glass half full to the way forward, is there something that –

DE: With respect to the natatorium, I’m not aware of any particular working group or anything like that, at least I’m not part of it. There probably is something internal to the city where they’ve had a team of people looking at it beyond just production of the EIS. But in Waikiki as part of this Waikiki beach district actually ends at the Kapahulu groin. But if you think of Kapahulu groin to the Ala Wai we have formed a working committee, that’s the Waikiki Beach Community Advisory Committee, and it’s largely composed of beach boys, lifeguards, operators on the beach, government officials, and we’ve been asking very specific questions about what should we be doing in Waikiki and what is your version of Waikiki. Of course that committee’s responsibility doesn’t extend as far down as the natatorium but it might serve as a good model [that] we could look at.

The Conversation: Waikiki Natatorium Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Hawaii Public Radio: The Conversation
December 13, 2018
By Catherine Cruz & Ryan Finnerty

CREDIT WAIKIKI NATATORIM / FLICKR / CC BY 2.0


Transcribed by the Kaimana Beach Coalition.

Catherine Cruz: Christmas is coming up fast, but even faster is a deadline to submit your two cents about the future of the Waikiki Natatorium War Memorial. A long-awaited draft Environment Impact Statement has a deadline of Christmas Eve. The latest twist is that the preferred option is a modified deck design, not tearing down the structure, to make way for a memorial beach and building a new arch inland that has been the Mayor’s personal preference.

The draft EIS design puts the modified design as cheaper than just demolishing it, but is it? Opponents question the inclusion of costs to build an ocean safety building as part of the beach option. The city had proposed it once before, but then pulled back after push back from a park watchdog group and park users.

We invited Robert Kroning, the city’s Design and Construction Director, to stop by yesterday afternoon to talk about the EIS and the modified deck option.

Robert Kroning: It allows us to maintain pretty much the entire structure that’s there now, the Natatorium that we know today. The only real difference being the walls that hold up the deck. And that allows the ocean to flow through and so we have a circulation system that is still ocean and where we don’t have to do all the work to meet pool rules, which are quite stringent. Two sides of the swim area will be – are made of fiber-reinforced polymer. It’s like a very hard plastic-type material, and it will be bars, not necessarily mesh. Bars so that there’s free movement from vertical movement up and down.

CC: So more like a grate?

RK: Right. Or a fence sort of construction. And one of the important parts of having a basin that is good to swim in is to make sure that the water within there is not too stagnant so it’ll allow the flow with the currents and the wave action.

CC: The Kaimana Beach Coalition has raised some questions about liability, if whether that system is in use anywhere else, if it’s been tested anywhere, and if that would be any type of a liability or concern for swimmers that might get caught in some tricky conditions over there.

RK: I don’t think that this structure exists in this type of a swimming area the way we’re looking to design it. But there’s certainly testing that goes on, and it will be fully vetted and tested for safety and for all those concerns.

CC: Currently the Natatorium houses I think some offices for the ocean safety folks that guard that beach, so what does the EIS include as part of that plan?

RK: Our ocean safety folks have been giving us some guidance and information on what they would require and how they would operate if it were a beach. Or even if it were a perimeter deck, because they would be responsible for the perimeter deck option. And then the Department of Parks and Recreation if it becomes a pool would provide the lifeguards for that. And they’re analyzing and determining how they would operate it and so forth. So the numbers that are in the EIS right now are their initial analysis on the operations and the numbers of lifeguards that they would need throughout the day so we can get an annual cost for providing those lifeguards.

CC: But I would think you would need more lifeguards than if it’s a basin? Is that right?

RK: If it’s a structure, intuitively it seems like that, so you might say that it – I think whether it’s a beach versus a perimeter deck or a pool, there’s probably different operating hours that they would operate. And so some of the difference in numbers may be related to that. A pool more than likely would be closed a little more often than a beach would be throughout the year and may not be open as long as the beach would need lifeguards to be stationed. So those kind of things are still under analysis by the departments.

CC: From what I understand there’s a segment in the EIS that calls for a separate lifeguard building.

RK: For the lifeguards, if we maintain the structure that’s there now, whether it’s for a pool or for a perimeter deck, we will most likely keep the ocean safety folks in the structure that they’re in now, under the bleachers is basically where they have their offices. And we would upgrade them and renovate them as part of the project. If we turn it into a beach, well that structure goes away so we would need to create, find another space for that operation to work out of.

CC: The administration had plans for a standalone lifeguard building on the other side of the aquarium, so is that where this would be sited?

RK: It could be. Again, it’s open, we haven’t made a final decision on any of that. So those are the things that would have to be finalized in the construction for that.

CC: OK. The reason I bring that up is I think that the preservation society, the watchdog group of the park, had raised some questions about whether that was the best place, taking green space away from park users for a lifeguard building which – it’s an administration building [that] could be anywhere else.

RK: Right. So the answer hasn’t been determined yet. It may not go there, it may go somewhere else.

CC: And is the price of building that building included in the EIS?

RK: It is.

Usually, this condition is found in older men who bought here cheap viagra in usa are above the age of 18. Its key ingredient is generic no prescription viagra generic tadalafil that helps in the process of impotency curingWORKING :Apcalis comes under a group of medicines called phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. Women get a better chance to enjoy pleasurable orgasms with enlarged phallus as more friction is produced on the wall of the vagina. cialis online without prescription Also, it is found that hormonal imbalance and over active pituitary glands is also responsible for lack of sexual discount levitra wish. CC: Is that –

RK: It’s about 1.8 is what we’re estimating that.

CC: And are those the same figures that were just lifted from the previous design, or was it – are they new figures?

RK: They’re adjusted. We have to take into consideration that the staff that is being, for lack of a better term, evicted from their offices in the Waikiki War Memorial will have to be housed somewhere. And so whether it’s actually in that spot or somewhere else I don’t think is that critical right now to the EIS but the estimate on what it would cost to put them somewhere does need to be included.

CC: OK. I just raise that because there was push back and concern about whether is was an administration building, if it should be sited in that park or somewhere else, and just build a lifeguard stand.

RK: Right. So that will all have to be analyzed. But in the end it still adds costs. The property that the Waikiki War Memorial sits on, basically the structure, is state land, so DLNR, but there’s been an Executive Order to the city to maintain and take care of it. And so that’s why the city is involved and pretty much [are] de facto owners of that property and doing what we need to do with it. The land behind it is City and County land and is a part of I think counted as part of Kapiolani Park.

CC: And the Trust.

RK: And the Trust.

CC: Commercialism has been something that has been raised by the Kapiolani Park Preservation Society and the Kaimana Beach Coalition. How do you address that?

RK: We have no plan to commercialize the area at all. So it’s not part of what we’re proposing as any of the alternatives or any of the actions going forward.

CC: OK. But I mean, does it allow for any commercialism?

RK: In the future, anybody interested in commercializing the area could attempt it and would have to go through all the different – probably, maybe even have to do an EIS again just to do that action and would get the scrutiny of pretty much the same players that are part of the stakeholders of this project. So I’m sure the Kapiolani Park Trust would get involved and all the stakeholders of the area as some kind of an attempt to commercialize the area would be proposed. I just know the Caldwell administration has no interest in commercializing it right now.

So Mayor Caldwell is the decision maker, I mean, he’s the one we’re doing this analysis for. And yes, initially based on him wanting to do something, so why this all got started again in the first place, because he understood very clearly that it was just unacceptable to leave the Natatorium in the condition that it’s in. And so at the time that we went forward and we were looking at OK, if we’re going to do something, what is the proposed action we should propose? And there had been a task force under the Hannemann administration that had kinda reviewed and looked at the situation and came up with the beach alternative as what was the most appropriate. In about 1999 we were inches away from completing a full restoration of the whole Natatorium. And what happened was there was a lawsuit that came about, and in the end the judge decreed that we need to stop until the Department of Health could develop pool rules, because at the time there were no rules for saltwater pools.

It took two years for them to do that, and when they did, the rules that they instituted then made it impossible for the project we were going forward with to be complete ’cause it didn’t meet the pool rules. So once that happened everything pretty much stopped again. And it took until Mayor Caldwell because mayor to say no, we need to do something. So based on all the information that had happened before, we decided well, it looks like there’s really only two options. We can either build it according to pool rules or demolish it and turn it into a beach. So the proposed action when we first started this again was, turn it into a beach, that’s what he thought was the best option and that’s what he wanted to do.

So move forward to today, in all that time that’s gone past we’ve done the Environmental Impact Statement process, which is a lot of analysis and review and consultation. And in that time what we’ve discovered is that we do have the ability to do another option, which is now this perimeter deck. And that took quite a few iterations. We had attempted that once, we had consultations with the State Historic Preservation Division, who had said “we want you to try to save a little more of the structure”. So at first we went through an iteration and they were basically, “save the bleachers and then get rid of everything else in front of it”. And so we had stakeholders come in and look at that and nobody liked that, it was horrible, forget it, none of that. So then we went a little bit farther and we developed what is now the perimeter deck. We were still quite uncertain that this would be acceptable to the Department of Health as not being classified as a pool.

And so it took us a while before we could get to meet with them where they said, they took a look at it and have agreed, yes, this does not have to meet pool rules. So once that happened, that allowed us to now include it as an alternative. With that as an alternative and a relook at all the analysis on – an EIS looks at many things. Historic, cultural, economic, costs, fiscal-type things, and local input for – and then actually how it affects the true physical environment, like marine biology and corals, and shoreline, and everything. So the whole gamut things that it looks at. And after we’ve done the analysis on all of those different categories what we’ve realized is the perimeter deck is probably the best of the three options. We’ve presented it to the mayor and talked to him about it and said, you know, we originally went with the beach, we think that’s not the best option anymore, we’d like you to change your proposed action to be the perimeter deck. And he has agreed to that.

CC: OK. And the big question he said is the money part of it.

RK: Certainly. None of these are perfect answers, right? There’s passion, it’s [a] passionate issue on two sides. You get your preservationists and you’ve got your Kaimana Beach turn it into a beach type opinions. The nice thing I like about my role is I just stay objective about the whole thing and try to look at the data. It’d be nice if we could throw the data in a machine and it would pop out an answer, but it doesn’t, so there’s still some subjectivity to it. But yes. So cost is one of the important aspects of this.

What I think a lot of the people are misunderstanding, the actual capital costs of the perimeter deck are the least of the three options. Clearly the no action is the cheapest, but that’s not an option. So the perimeter deck is about 3 million dollars less expensive in capital costs than the beach option. And then the turning it into a full pool is much more expensive.

CC: What about the issue of the silt and the sediment at the bottom, because there’s concern about the degradation of the environment, not just for the swimmers in the area but also for the aquarium on the other side?

RK: No, of course that’s a concern that everybody should have. And it’s actually a concern for all the options that we go forward with, and so it’s being analyzed very closely and in the end it’s not really a show-stopper in the sense that any of the options will have a different result. It’s manageable. It’s manageable through all kinds of protections that already exists. Once we finish with the Environmental Impact Statement we still have to go through all kinds of permitting. One of them will be water quality, so whatever we do within the footprint of the project, whether it’s turn it into a beach or leave it as a perimeter deck or turn it into a pool, we’ll have to make sure we’re complying with water quality rules and everything that the permit entails.

CC: OK. Alright. So, still a very long process to go.

RK: Unfortunately, yes.

CC: OK. So when will we see a final EIS published?

RK: We’re hoping a final EIS is gonna happen this summer. Middle to late summer is when we should get the final EIS. And once that happens we are budgeting to have the design begun almost immediately.

CC: That was Robert Kroning, Director of the City’s Design and Construction. The EIS deadline for comments again is Christmas Eve. Kroning says if there are historical, cultural or safety issues you believe the report overlooks, send in your testimony. For links to the EIS, check our Facebook page, theconversationhpr.

Remembering and Forgetting at The Waikiki War Memorial Park and Natatorium

This paper was written by Brian Ireland and published in The Hawaiian Journal of History, Volume 39 in 2005. His extensive research found that during World War I only eight Hawai‘i residents actually died by enemy action under the U.S. flag. He examines the memorial’s contentious, colonialist beginnings and questionable symbolism within its historical context.

Read the full paper below, or download it here:

Remembering and Forgetting at The Waikiki War Memorial Park and Natatorium
2005
(PDF format, 630k)

 

Remembering and Forgetting at The Waikiki
 War Memorial Park and Natatorium

BRIAN IRELAND

Brian Ireland was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and attended the University of Ulster where he earned a BA in Humanities and an MA in American Studies. He lived in Hawai‘i for five years while he was enrolled in the doctoral program in American Studies at the University of Hawai‘i. He graduated in December 2004 and currently lives in England.

The Hawaiian Journal of History, vol. 39 (2005)

ON THE WESTERN SLOPE of Diamond Head, commanding a majestic view west towards Waikiki, Honolulu, and further towards Pearl Harbor, there once stood a Native Hawaiian structure known as Papa‘ena‘ena Heiau. Clearly visible from nearby Waikiki village, the heiau or place of worship, measured 130 feet in length and 70 feet in width. It consisted of a mana (supernatural or divine power) house approximately 50 feet long; an oven house (hale umu); a drum house; a waiea or spiritual house; an anu‘u or tower; a lele (altar) and twelve large images. The heiau was bordered by a rectangular wooden fence approximately six to eight feet tall with an eight-foot wide base, which narrowed to three feet at its apex. On the western side of the heiau there were three small terraces, on the highest one of which were planted five kou trees at regular distances from each other. The heiau was the center point of an area of land considered sacred or spiritual to Native Hawaiians, which may have stretched across what is now Kapi‘olani Park as far as to the Kupalaha heiau situated near the present-day intersection of Kalakaua and Monsarrat Avenues.

It is likely that the heiau was built in 1783 by Kahekili, the mo‘i or ruler of Maui, as part of a victory celebration following Kahekili’s conquest of O‘ahu. After King Kamehameha’s victory at the Battle of the Pali in 1895, Kamehameha ordered the sacrifice of the defeated ali‘i (chiefs) of O‘ahu at Papa‘ena‘ena Heiau. The heiau was probably used for sacrificial or sacred purposes for 35 years. However, following the death of Kamehameha and the subsequent diminishment in status and practice of Hawaiian religious beliefs, the heiau was leveled along with many of the other traditional religious heiau and monuments. Its ruins lay relatively undisturbed until the 1850s when the stones that comprised the heiau were carted off to build roads in Waikiki and walls at Queen Emma’s estate. (1)

In sharp contrast to Papa‘ena‘ena Heiau, and nine other sacred structures that once stood in and around Kapi‘olani Park, there now stands an incongruous beaux-arts-style, neoclassical memorial, another place de memoire, called The Waikiki War Memorial Park and Natatorium, which opened in 1927. Although it has fallen into disrepair, in its prime the memorial was an impressive structure. The swimming pool was over 100 meters long, twice the size of an Olympic pool, the mauka (mountain-facing) wall was composed of an arch at least 25 feet high, flanked by two 12-foot arches each topped with four large eagle sculptures. Approximately 9,800 of Hawai‘i’s citizens served in the U.S. armed forces after America’s entry into World War I in 1917 and the names of 101 of those who died are inscribed on a plaque attached to the “Honolulu Stone” situated mauka of the Natatorium and unveiled in 1931. (2)

There is, however, some considerable doubt as to the veracity of those casualty figures. According to statistician Robert Schmitt, of the 9,800 Hawaii residents who served in World War I,

102 died—14 overseas during the war, 61 in Hawai‘i or North America or after the armistice, and 27 in unknown circumstances. Twenty-two of the 102 recorded deaths occurred among Island residents serving with the British. Actual battle deaths of persons in the U.S. armed forces whose preservice residence was Hawai‘i numbered six: seven others were wounded. (3)

These figures are not entirely correct: 101 names are listed on the memorial not 102; eight soldiers were “actual battle deaths,” not six. Nevertheless, these figures raise questions about the purpose of the memorial. Since only eight Hawai‘i residents died by enemy action under the U.S. flag—the others having died of other causes before and after the war’s end—the Memorial obviously exaggerates the death toll, thus magnifying the sacrifices made by “Hawai‘i’s sons.”

Memorials are an important way of remembering. They are not just part of the past; they help shape attitudes in the present and thus act as a guide for the future. Professor Charles Griswold, chair of the philosophy department at Boston University, argues that memorials are “a species of pedagogy” that seeks to instruct posterity about the past and, in so doing, necessarily reaches a decision about what is worth recovering. (4) In Lies Across America, sociologist James Loewen asks, “Where . . . do Americans learn about the past?” He argues persuasively that it is “surely most of all from the landscape.” (5) One recurring theme of Loewen’s analysis of American memorials is their importance as a political statement. Although many memorials outwardly project discourses of “remembering” or “honoring,” they may also have covert and hidden meanings. Rather than simply paying tribute to the dead, the Waikiki War Memorial actually promotes militarism. It is a triumphalist monument to the glory of war, which dishonors the dead by masking the horror of mechanized trench warfare behind a pretty facade and noble but misleading words.

Furthermore, when one adds the memorial’s architectural style, which is so incompatible with its Pacific island setting, to the discrepancy between actual casualty figures and those listed by the memorial, it becomes clear that the Waikiki War Memorial was built also to further the “100% Americanism” of Hawai‘i. The memorial acted as a channel through which Hawai‘i’s American settler community could express its nationalistic pride. Patriotic groups used it to further the cause of Americanism and to glorify war as a noble and heroic sacrificial act. Conveniently forgotten in this narrative, however, are the soldiers actually named on the memorial. Details of why they enlisted, and how and where they died, are missing from the memorial’s dedication. This paper will address how and why these soldiers are remembered by the memorial and evaluate if the extant structure is either the best or only way to remember their deaths.

ORIGIN OF THE WAR MEMORIAL

Local citizens formed a War Memorial Committee in 1918 in response to the promptings of a group called the Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian Warriors. There were a number of interested parties involved including the Daughters of Hawaii, the Rotary Club, the Outdoor Circle, the Pan-Pacific Union, Central YMCA, St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Hawaiian Women’s Guild, Kamehameha Alumni Association, Hawaiian Civic Club, Order of Kamehameha, Longshoremen’s Mutual Aid Association, Knights of Pythias, and the Ad Club. Notable interested individuals included former territorial Attorney General W.O. Smith and territorial tax collector Colonel Howard Hathaway. (6) As historian Kirk Savage has noted, they were following a relatively new trend in monument building that began in the 19th century:

In the expansive era of the nineteenth century, monuments were not bestowed by the state on the citizenry, or at least they weren’t supposed to be. . . What gave monuments their particular appeal in an era of rising nationalism was their claim to speak for ‘the people’. . . Most monuments therefore originated not as official projects of the state but as volunteer enterprises sponsored by associations of ‘public-spirited’ citizens and funded by individual donations. These voluntary associations often had direct links to officialdom, but they received legitimacy only by manufacturing popular enthusiasm (and money) for the project. (7)

The first designs for the memorial had no connection whatsoever to the extant construction. In fact, there was considerable support at one stage for either a memorial designed by architect Roger Noble Burnham (8) to be erected in Palace Square close to the statue of King Kamehameha, or for a Memorial Hall. (9) Burnham suggested that his design would “symboliz[e] Hawaii’s contribution to Liberty. It consists of three figures, the central one typifying Liberty while beneath are a Hawaiian warrior and a Hawaiian maiden. The warrior offers his spear while the maiden extends in outstretched hands a lei.” (10) This design would feature a rostrum enclosed on three sides by a wall. Unlike the extant memorial, Burnham wanted to honor both the military and Hawai‘i’s civilian population, which had contributed to the war by buying bonds and helping the Red Cross. One wall, therefore, would have inscriptions dedicated to Hawai‘i’s civilian population and the other walls would depict military activities.

Burnham’s modest design was championed by Mrs. Walter (Alice) Macfarlane. She was born Alice Kamokila Campbell, daughter of wealthy landowner James Campbell and Abigail Kuaihelani Maipinepine, who was from a mixed Native Hawaiian and haole (Caucasian) family from Lahaina, Maui. When James Campbell died in 1900, his estate was held in trust for his wife and daughters. Alice Macfarlane, who in later years would become a voice against statehood for Hawai‘i, was a respected and influential woman. She opposed notions of a memorial hall, an auditorium, or civic center as she was concerned that a “memorial hall would commercialize the memory of the men who had paid the supreme sacrifice.” Supporters of the memorial hall design, however, believed that it would become a center of civic life where “people could go and hear enlightening talks and entertaining music.” (11) One other suggestion at this time, by the Chamber of Commerce, was for the memorial either to be placed in a prominent position at the entrance to Honolulu Harbor or on Sand Island, where “it would be the first thing that would greet the arriving traveler, and the last thing he would see.” (12) These early deliberations over the placement of the monument, and its design as either a traditional monument or as a usable, “living” structure, would characterize the nature of the debate for many months.

In early February 1919, further designs were considered; Burnham exhibited sketches of a design that incorporated his original sculpture into a larger design that also included a memorial hall. (13) The cost of this project would be somewhere in the region of $750,000, (14) the equivalent today of $7,674,333.33. (15) Another suggestion at this point was for a very practical memorial that would comprise one new wing of the Queen’s Hospital. (16) Yet another design by T.H. Ripley & Davis architects envisaged an impressive memorial hall surrounded by large Grecian columns, which would feature a large rotunda filled with “statuary tablets.” (17)

On March 24, 1919 it was reported in the Pacific Commercial Advertiser that the War Memorial Committee was finally going to announce that a general design had been agreed upon for a monument and memorial hall to be situated on a “strip of land along Punchbowl Street, between King and Queen Streets.” This was to be the majority report’s proposal. A dissenting minority report, led by Alice Macfarlane, questioned the cost of the proposed memorial and suggested once again that it be limited solely to a monument without the additional expense of a memorial hall. Macfarlane stated that the monument should “emphasize the spiritual side of victory, rather than . . . show the wealth of the community.” (18) The next day, however, the Advertiser reported that the memorial would not be situated on Punchbowl and that proposals had been made to approach the Irwin Estate to buy property at Kapi‘olani Park instead. For some time John Guild, chairman of the Beach Park Memorial Committee, had been in correspondence with the Irwin Estate about buying the property for use as a Pan-Pacific Peace Palace. However, at the War Memorial Committee meeting, Guild suggested that the land be purchased for a war memorial park instead. It seems this was a compromise to ease the tensions raised between those responsible for the majority and minority reports.

The site of the memorial had now been resolved but the debate over its design had not. Guild’s letter to the Legislature envisaged a memorial park with an “arch or statue” as opposed to a memorial hall. (19) Perhaps it was believed that the open spaces of the park would provide a natural amphitheatre and that a hall was no longer appropriate. Or perhaps there was no way to overcome the objections of Mrs. Macfarlane and still maintain a consensus. In any event, Guild was insistent that the memorial plans be given due consideration and that they should not rush into accepting a design. He worried that,

We do not want to erect a monument which shall at some future date be looked upon as a thing of bad taste. Too many of the soldier’s [sic] Monuments of the past have been of this character. I believe the memorial should take a form that will express the spirit of Hawaii and be in harmony with the wonderful tropical surroundings of the proposed site. (20)

Early deliberations over the erection, placement, and design of the memorial took place almost entirely within the American civilian community in Hawai‘i. However, in August of 1919 the newly-formed American Legion entered the fray. (21) Colonel Theodore Roosevelt (son of the ex-president) and other senior officers created the American Legion in France to direct disaffected soldiers away from the lure of socialism. Journalist and author Marcus Duffield states, “The American General Staff was seriously concerned about how to keep up morale. American bankers and business men [sic] who visited Europe returned filled with anxiety. What would be the attitude of returning troops?” (22) By early 1921, the Hawai‘i branch of the American Legion had wrested control of the memorial scheme out of the hands of the citizens’ War Memorial Committee. There is no suggestion of conflict or dispute in the historical record—a Paradise of the Pacific editorial noted simply that the “American Legion . . . has charge of the projected War Memorial”—but it would have taken a very brave or foolish citizen indeed to stand up to military veterans who had so very comprehensively wrapped themselves in the U.S. flag. (23)

Despite many different ideas as to what design would constitute a fitting memorial and where it should be situated, by early 1921 the American Legion’s views held total sway. For example, CJS Group Architects note in their Final Historical Background Report on the memorial, that, “This concept of having a memorial [i.e. one that included a swimming pool] was originally initiated by the American Legion Chapter of Hawai‘i.’’ (24) This despite the fact that the Legion was not involved, in fact did not even exist, when some of Hawai‘i’s citizens were submitting plans and raising interest and money for the memorial in 1918. Of course, arguments over control of projects such as memorials are not unusual: The Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian Warriors were complaining as early as January 1919 that “they proposed the memorial first and then later on another element steps in and crowds them.” (25)

However, even given that expected bickering, the question still remains, why did such a new and untried organization quickly gain such a hold over the Memorial project? Perhaps the answer can be seen in the preamble to the American Legion’s constitution, in which the Legion pledges not only to “preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the Great War” but also to “foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism.” (26) Coming so soon after the end of a devastating world war in which 116,000 Americans were killed, (27) it is hardly a surprise that a veterans’ group would quickly attain a position of influence. However, what made the Legion so powerful was that its aims coincided with those connected to the powerful U.S. military presence in Hawaii, with some of the haole elite who were pushing for statehood, and with others who did not want statehood but did want to make Hawai‘i less alien to their American sensibilities.

At the Memorial Park’s formal dedication on Armistice Day, November 11, 1919, Governor James McCarthy symbolically handed over possession of the park to the American Legion whose Honolulu chapter had been formed barely two months earlier. The Legion’s chaplain, Father Valentin, read prayers at what the Advertiser described as a “semi-military ceremony not without its lessons to present and future generations.” (28) Although the Legion now had control over developing the park, it still had not solved the problem of the design of the war memorial itself. In that respect it had made no more progress than the war memorial committees from which it had assumed control. The Legion did, however, ignore all previous designs and schemes and published instead a rough outline of its own proposals:

. . . an arch or other memorial feature at the shore. To the landward would be an open space under the trees, carefully landscaped and prepared for seats so that memorial exercises, band concerts or other similar events may be held with the arch or monument as the stage and background. To the seaward would be a natatorium, but with its concrete walls rising only high enough above the waterline to keep their tops above the surf. . . By the plan suggested the views along the beach would not be obstructed in any way and yet all the features of other plans, and more, would be preserved. (29)

Unlike Burnham’s earlier design, this was to be a memorial dedicated only to the military, with no recognition of the contribution made to the war effort by Hawai‘i’s civilian population. It is telling that although the Legion was offering prizes for new designs, it had already established what the rough outline of the memorial should be. In fact, its outline is remarkably close to the extant memorial, the only real differences being the incorporation of the arch into the actual natatorium and the omission of the landscaped area on which now stands the Honolulu Stone and plaque.

In 1921, when the Territorial Legislature authorized the appointment of a “Territorial War Memorial Commission” to hold a competition to find an appropriate design for the memorial, Governor McCarthy asked the American Legion to put together the Memorial Committee, effectively handing it total control over the project. Governor McCarthy invited the Legion to submit names for the Memorial Committee and asked Louis Christian Mullgardt to be the Territorial War Memorial Commission’s advisory architect. (30) In choosing Mullgardt, the governor and the American Legion were virtually ensuring that a neoclassical-style beaux-arts memorial would be built. All of the architects favored neoclassical designs. For example, Mullgardt designed the Panama-Pacific International Exposition’s “Court of the Ages” and “Tower of the Ages.” The Territorial War Memorial Commission nominated three architects from the mainland to judge the competition: Ellis F. Lawrence of Portland, Bernard Maybeck of San Francisco and W.R.B. Wilcox of Seattle. (31) All three were practitioners of the neoclassical style of design. Furthermore, the winning design had to conform to Mullgardt’s plan for the Memorial Park, in which the war memorial “was to consist of a temple of music, plaza, and collosseum [sic] with swimming basin.” (32) It made no real difference, therefore, who actually won the design competition; it had already been decided that a neoclassical beaux-arts natatorium and landscaped park would be the outcome.

Figure 1-Tentative Sketch ca.1919-1922 HSA

FIG. 1. Tentative Sketch of Memorial Natatorium proposed by the American Legion, ca. 1919—1922. War Memorial Commission. Hawai‘i State Archives.

 

When the judges arrived in Hawai‘i in June 1922 to award the prize, they were met by officials of the American Legion under whose auspices the memorial was to be built. Within a few days the judges awarded the first prize to Lewis Hobart of San Francisco. (33) Between 1922 and 1927, when the Waikiki War Memorial and Natatorium was finally opened, Hobart’s original design, described as a “dream plan” by Maybeck, was twice pared down to stay within the $250,000 budget. The original plan for a natatorium, temple of music, ticket booth, dressing rooms, and some very elaborate friezes, busts, and murals could not be built within the budget, and after attempts to appropriate more money failed, the temple of music became the cost-cutters’ main casualty.

Figure 2-The Natatorium, 1928 HSA

FIG. 2. The Natatorium, 1928. Hawai‘i State Archives.

 

HOBART’S FOLLY

Like most beaux-arts constructions, the Waikiki War Memorial Park and Natatorium is grandiose and pompous. The entrance is composed of a grand arch flanked by two pilasters projecting slightly out from the wall (pilasters are rectangular supports resembling a flat column). The top of the arch features typical classical ornamentation—a medallion and frieze topped with a round pediment in the Greek Revival style. Two large symmetrical eagles on either side flank the medallion. Adjacent to the main entrance arch are two smaller arches, above each of which is a decorative cartouche set into the wall, topped with elaborate cornices. The effect of the entrance is to present a symmetrical facade, an imposition of order, structure, and planning into the natural disordered surroundings of sea, beach, and parkland. In its imperial grandeur, it means to instruct viewers of the benefits of the stability and order that European civilization can provide. Architectural historian William Jordy states “the idea of stability was . . . implicit in the traditionalism of the Beaux-Arts esthetic; in other words, its academic point of view which held . . . that the past provided vocabularies of form and compositional themes from which the present should learn.” (34)

Figure 3-Entrance Arch, Undated HSA

FIG. 3. Entrance Arch of the War Memorial, undated. Hawai‘i State Archives.

 

Memorials can only work as designed when the shared memory of the past is uncontroversial, Historian Kirk Savage points out, for example, that memorials to the American Civil War avoided controversy by memorializing soldiers from both sides but not the disputed causes for which they fought. In the process, these memorial makers erased from their reconstructed history images of slaves and slavery. Conversely, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial remains controversial because its design reflects the arguments over the war it commemorates. American World War I memorials avoided such controversy by narrating that war as a noble cause, a clear-cut fight between good and evil, freedom and despotism—the evil “Hun” verses the freedom-loving, democratic nations of England and the United States.

While comparisons between war memorials dedicated to different wars can be problematic, some use can be made of comparing and contrasting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to the Waikiki War Memorial. It should not be expected, of course, that the Waikiki War Memorial should in any way resemble the Vietnam Wall: the former is a product of a victorious war with relatively few American casualties (compared to other Allied losses), the latter is a product of a bitterly divisive war that America lost. However, rather than making any comparison between the two memorials inappropriate, those differences in historical context can actually serve to illustrate the functions of war memorials in a society at any given time.

Unlike, the self-reflective Vietnam Veterans War Memorial, the imposing entrance of Hobart’s structure has most of its decoration and inscriptions well above eye level, and thus demands that its audience step back, crane their necks and look up to the two American eagles. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is made with black reflective granite instead of the triumphant white marble or stone of beaux-arts monuments. Whereas the facade of the Waikiki War Memorial demands that viewers remain passive in contemplation of its majesty, onlookers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial can see themselves reflected in the stone, which seems to mirror the self-reflective mood associated with the “Vietnam Syndrome.” The names on the Honolulu Stone plaque are arranged in a rigid and anonymous way: top and center is an eagle holding laurel leaves. Below that there is a five-pointed star in whose center is a circle with the letters “US”. Below that on a banner is the legend “FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.” Below that is the legend “ROLL OF HONOR” and below that again is the quotation, “DULCE ET DECORUM EST PRO PATRIA MORI.” Below that are the words “IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.” The names are listed in three columns and split into Army and Navy. Below that, also in three columns, are the names of those who died “IN THE SERVICE OF GREAT BRITAIN.”

These categorizations group the soldiers together as if they died in a common cause, and make them anonymous servants to the greater glory of war. Compare that to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, where the soldiers’ names are arranged chronologically by date of death instead of country, rank, or regiment. This has the effect not only of verisimilitude— making it real—but also of presenting a more democratic “people’s” memorial rather than a regimented military monument. In order to find a name on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, relatives of those killed would need to come prepared with a certain amount of historical information about the war, including the date of the death of their loved one. Whereas most war memorials function as designed only if they remain vague about actual details of a war and its causes, in contrast, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial works only when precise historical details are present. Unlike the interactive Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which asks visitors to reflect on the causes of the war and the folly and waste that war entails, the facade of the Waikiki War Memorial and Natatorium means to inspire awe and respect for Euro-American achievements, to excuse warfare as a legitimate and honorable way of solving disputes, and to glorify the U.S. military and its role in the conflict.

The Waikiki War Memorial and Natatorium is dedicated to war, not peace. However, it is also dedicated to victory. The memorial contains, for example, three triumphal arches (an entrance arch, flanked by two smaller arches). In a 1919 Pacific Commercial Advertiser article, architect C.R. Ripley had warned of the inappropriateness of utilizing such celebratory imagery. Ripley argued, “Surely we want no memorial arches. The watchword of the war has been, ‘To make the world safe for democracy.’ Where does the victory arch typify that inspiration? We want no memorials to glorify war and victory.” (35) Hobart, however, relied heavily on the American Legion’s arch-dominated design, (36) thus ensuring that the memorial would be dedicated to vanquishing America’s enemies.

University of Kansas architecture professor James Mayo points out, “War memorials to victory are trophies that not only keep us mindful of who won, but also assure us that the war was honorable. God was on the side of the victors, and therefore their cause was righteous.” (37) The Waikiki War Memorial fits neatly into Mayo’s analysis of victory monuments: it is made to be “steadfast and solid,” of those good materials [that] are practical expressions of permanence.” The main design on the mauka-facing wall is above head level, a technique, Mayo notes, that “works as a metaphor, since we look ‘up’ to people we respect.” (38) A major theme of this memorial is the sacrifice that Hawai‘i and its citizens made for the greater glory of America. Advocating “peace” instead of victory was seen as weakness; war was a rite of passage to manhood transmitted “through inscriptions on war memorials which lauded martial virtues by accompanying the names of the fallen with adjectives such as ‘brave’ or courageous.” (39)

The Waikiki War Memorial does not make any bold or precise statements about those it commemorates. There are no phrases, for example, like “killed in action” or “killed by enemy fire.” Instead, the memorial is coy and evasive about where and why these soldiers died. It utilizes non-specific phrases such as “For God And Country,” “Roll Of Honor,” “Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori,” “In The Service Of Great Britain,” and “In The Service Of The United States,” all of which could refer to almost any war. Clearly the overall impression the memorial wishes to convey is that the soldiers died for a noble cause, which is why the legend does not linger on any specific reasons for the war, or mention any battles. The effect of this is, as Mayo notes, “facetious,” as the high-minded and abstract ideals mentioned “are not grounded in the ugly realities of war.” (40) In this respect, the memorial is ahistorical. This narrative is, as historian Paul Fussell points out,

typical of popular histories of the war written on the adventure-story model: they like to ascribe clear, and usually noble, cause and purpose to accidental or demeaning events. Such histories thus convey to the optimistic and credulous a satisfying, orderly, and even optimistic and wholesome view of catastrophic occurrences—a fine way to encourage a moralistic, nationalistic, and bellicose politics. (41)

By employing a rhetorical device known as enthymematic argumentation, the memorial gives the impression that 101 persons from Hawaii died in France—79 died fighting under American arms, and 22 in the British Army. In enthymematic argumentation, the speaker builds an argument with one element removed, leading listeners to fill in the missing piece. Since it provides only limited information, one might assume from reading the text on the Honolulu Stone that all of those who died were killed as a result of enemy action. This is, however, not the case. For example, of the 79 who served in the U.S. armed forces, it can be ascertained that only eight were killed by enemy action—seven in France and one, Private Manuel Ramos, on the way to France, when his troopship was torpedoed in the Atlantic Ocean. (42) The causes of death of the other 71 soldiers and sailors are more mundane than the memorial would have us believe. Thirty-six died of flu and/or pneumonia in the great epidemic that ravaged the world in 1918, five in accidents, one of suicide, two of heart attacks, eight of unknown causes, and 19 of other natural causes including tuberculosis, cancer, appendicitis, meningitis, blood poisoning, peritonitis ulcer, intestinal obstruction, and brain hemorrhage. Eight of the 71 non-combat-related deaths occurred in France: four of those soldiers died of flu, two in accidents, and two of unknown causes.

These foods are enriched with biochemical compounds which bind to heavy metals and allow your body to flush them out naturally through urine, sweat, and bowel movements. generic viagra In this manner, this magical medicine shows wonder to keep male health normal and provide him way to enjoy his virility.Kamagra is a FDA approved medicine that 100mg viagra assures a user about its quality and effectiveness on his health. order viagra Addictions are of many kinds-alcohol, gambling etc. When having you have high blood pressure you are not allowed to be taken by people have depressive disorder, serious diabetes, high blood pressure which lowest price on levitra is not stable, and nausea, weight gain and the resulting aged appearance. Whereas the British public knew by the end of the war that the battlefields of Belgium and France were slaughterhouses, an epiphany which led to the disillusioned literary style of the period, Americans, who had suffered far fewer casualties, and had been fighting for only about six months, from March 1918 until the Armistice in November, were still inclined to think of the war as a “noble cause.” Historian David Kennedy states, “Almost never in the contemporary American accounts do the themes of wonder and romance give way to those of weariness and resignation, as they do in the British.”43 This desire by Americans, to remember the war as dignified and purposeful is also why Latin was chosen as the language of the most forthright statement on the Waikiki War Memorial’s plaque. Such “‘[R]aised,’ essentially feudal language,” as Fussell calls it, is the language of choice for memorials. (44)

By the end of the war, British writers left behind the “high diction” of 19th-century literary tradition—words and phrases like “steed” instead of “horse,” “strife,” instead of “warfare” “breast,” instead of “chest” and “the red wine of youth,” in place of “blood”—and instead described events in a more down-to-earth and realistic way. (45) However, memorials were a different matter: whereas it seemed appropriate, given the high death tolls and brutality of World War I, for writers to change to a more factual and graphic idiom,“high diction” remained the language of monuments and memorials. It seemed somehow inappropriate and disrespectful, given the solid dignified presence of a concrete or marble memorial, to tell the undignified truth about wartime deaths, a truth that would involve grisly descriptions of severed limbs, burst intestines, decapitations, and other bloody injuries. Moreover, if the purpose of the Waikiki War Memorial was to inspire Native Hawaiian devotion to the greater glory of the state (the United States)—to be, as historian John Bodnar states, “reminded of ‘love of country’ and their duty to their ‘native’ land”—it would be self-defeating to remind Hawaiians of the butchery of Flanders. (46)

The purpose of the Waikiki War Memorial and Natatorium is only superficially a tribute to Hawai‘i’s Great War dead. In fact, the dead were used in death as they were in life, as sacrifices to the gods of war, to militarism, colonialism, and nationalism. This is evident in the memorial’s scale and in its deliberately vague and secretive inscription. James Mayo argues that war memorials “represent failure, the failure to prevent war.” (47) However, the American Legion and its supporters chose to build a huge neoclassical structure that exaggerates Hawai‘i’s role in the Great War. Given the relatively small number of casualties and minor role played by Hawai‘i, a more honest memorial would surely have been the small token affair envisaged by Burnham and championed by Macfarlane.

CONCLUSION

The Waikiki War Memorial and Natatorium represents a grand, overstated tribute to the relatively small number of casualties sustained by residents of Hawai‘i. However, that, of course, is not its true purpose, as is evident in its design and scale. The message that it symbolizes is one of submission to imperial forces and glorification of both war and the American military. This is exemplified by the legend on the Honolulu Stone which reads (in Latin), “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,” or “it is sweet and noble to die for one’s country,” from Horace’s Odes. This phrase would not only have been familiar to those with a classical education, but also to a wider audience who had read popular war novels. As historian David Kennedy points out, “one of Edith Wharton’s characters [in her 1918 book The Marne] tearfully meditate[d] on the ancient phrase from Horace: ‘dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.’” (48) However, at that time, the more topical and relevant use of that quotation was by British soldier and war poet, Wilfred Owen. His poem entitled Dulce et decorum cautions against the very same triumphant patriotism that the Waikiki War Memorial Park and Natatorium represents:

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Both Hobart and the American Legion probably knew of Owen’s poem. Like Siegfried Sassoon, he was well known and widely publicized at that time. They chose, however, to use the quote in its original context—as an obsequious and jingoistic tribute to war.

One-hundred-and-one persons from Hawai‘i died during the Great War. Who can know now what their motivations were in enlisting? Certainly for some it was not to defend the United States, as 30 or so of them enlisted with the British Army before the U.S. even entered the war. On July 31, 1918, a military draft was introduced that applied to all residents of the United States between the ages of 21 and 30, whether native born, naturalized, or alien. The draft was expanded in October 1917 to all male residents between the ages of 19 and 40. In total 4,336 of those who registered for the draft were called up to serve in the 1st and 2nd Hawaiian Infantry. (49) Of the 79 non-Navy U.S deaths recorded on the memorial, 40 men served with the 1st or 2nd Hawaiian Infantry. These units were, in effect, the Hawai‘i National Guard, federalized and sent to Fort Shafter and Schofield Barracks, or garrison duty to release other more professional troops for war service. A soldier in these units had little chance of being sent to France. Many of them worked as laborers in the sugar plantations and, as scholar Charles Warfield notes, Washington recognized that Hawai‘i’s sugar was more important than any contributions in terms of manpower that it could make to the war:

The National Guard had been organized with the idea that it would be used only for the defense of the Islands and would never be sent overseas. A large proportion of its ranks was composed of men who were indispensable to the sugar industry of the Islands, which had been greatly expanded during the war in Europe. If the National Guard of Hawaii were mobilized when the United States went to war it would seriously cripple the sugar industry. (50)

Twenty-five of the non-Navy soldiers who are named on the memorial enlisted after July 1918, and 36 of the 67 men enlisted in non-naval forces were attached to the 1st and 2nd Hawaiian Infantry. In other words, nearly one third of those who died while serving in the U.S. military may have been unwilling draftees, not volunteers, and almost one half may have joined the Hawaii National Guard to avoid having to go overseas to fight in the World War. (51)

Of the 72,000 residents of Hawai‘i registered for the draft as eligible to fight, 29,000—or 40 percent—were issei and nisei. Of the total that actually did serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, 838—approximately nine percent—were of Japanese descent. (52) Since Japan was at war with Germany at this time, who can say with any certainty that those from Hawai‘i were fighting for either America or for Japan? If they were fighting for the U.S., like the famous 442nd Regiment of World War II, how many enlisted to prove their loyalty in an unwritten test that should never have been enacted? Undoubtedly, those involved in the advocacy, planning, design, and building of the Waikiki War Memorial were mostly haole. There is little evidence, for example, of the involvement of Native Hawaiians or Japanese residents of Hawai‘i. Indeed, it is ironic that 838 Japanese residents of Hawaii volunteered to fight in France yet the American military, which in 1919 had asked the Hawai‘i State Legislature to pass a bill regulating Japanese language schools, and the American Legion, which gave that bill its full support, were extremely antagonistic in both rhetoric and action to Japanese culture in Hawai’i. (53)

Most newspaper accounts of Hawai‘i during the Great War paint a picture of a dedicated, patriotic populace, eager to do “its bit” for the war effort. Occasionally, there is some slippage in this narrative. For example, a 1919 Advertiser headline complained that, “not enough Hawaiians are on hand at the railroad depot when the mustered-out soldiers arrive there each day from Schofield Barracks to form a real welcoming committee. Representative citizens are in a feeble minority in the crowds.” This was in contrast to the U.S. mainland where “every town that has a railroad depot has its crowds on hand when a train comes in and the returning boys are given the biggest kind of welcome.” (54)

Author and sociologist Albert Memmi has noted that it is the colonialist’s “nation’s flag which flies over the monuments” in a colonized country and that the colonialist “never forgets to make a public show of his own virtues, and will argue with vehemence to appear heroic and great.” (55) Both of these descriptions aptly fit the Waikiki War Memorial and Natatorium. It glorifies war and acts to consolidate the American imperialist presence in Hawai‘i. Its celebration of the deaths of men for “freedom and democracy” masks the fact that World War I was fought between imperial powers, many of which were governed by unelected monarchies. Historian Jonathan Schell argues, “every political observer or political actor of vision has recognized that if life is to be fully human it must take cognizance of the dead.” (56) But what is the proper way to remember the dead of a senseless world war? Should they be used, as the American Legion and others seemed to think, to perpetuate patriotic, pro-militaristic narratives? The architectural folly that is the Waikiki War Memorial Park and Natatorium should remind us that, instead of glorifying war, nationalism, and militarism, there is no better tribute to those fallen than to remember war’s waste and futility.

NOTES

  1. See Robert R. Weyeneth, Kapi‘olani Park: A Victorian Landscape of Leisure. (Honolulu: Dept. of Parks and Recreation, City and County of Honolulu, 1991) 48–52, 62, 67. Also “Heiau found at La Pietra,” HSB, Feb. 16, 1968: A-8.
  2. Anne Burleigh, “Save the Natatorium,” Hawaii Architect ]uly 1973: 12–13.
  3. Robert Schmitt, “Hawai‘i’s War Veterans and Battle Deaths” HJH 32 (1998) 171–174.
  4. 4  See Marita Sturken, Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the Aids Epidemic, and the Politics of Remembering. (Berkeley: U of California P, 1997) 48.
  5. James Loewen, Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong (New York: New Press, 1999) 15.
  6. See Jeannette Murray Peek, Stepping Into Time: A Guide to Honolulu’s Historic Landmarks (Honolulu: Mutual, 1994) 108; “Memorial Project Takes Real Shape” PCA, Feb. 19, 1919: 5; “Pan-Pacific Art Committee to Plan Memorial,” PCA, Feb. 19, 1919: 4; “Statue Or Memorial Hall Issue Must Be Determined,” PCA,Jan. 11,1919: 5; “Proposes Aid for Memorial Funds,” PCA, Jan. 9, 1919: 1; “Rotary Club To Honor Officials Of Old Republic,” PCA, Aug. 12, 1919: 6.
  7. Kirk Savage, Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War, and Monument in Nineteenth-Century America (Princeton UP, 1999) 6.
  8. Burnham was a well-known architect responsible also for the design of the United Spanish War Veterans Memorial (also called The Spirit of ’98) erected in 1950 at the Wadsworth Hospital Center, West Los Angeles. Text from the plaque on the memorial reads: “1898—To Those Who Volunteered and Extended the Hand of Liberty to Alien Peoples—1902.”
  9. “Proposes Aid For Memorial Funds,” PCA, Jan. 9, 1919: 1.
  10. “Proposes Aid For Memorial Funds,” PCA, Jan. 9, 1919: 1.
  11. “Proposes Aid For Memorial Funds,” PCA, Jan. 9, 1919: 1.
  12. “Promotion Body Talks Memorial,” PCA, Jan. 15, 1919: 2.
  13. “Mass Meeting To Pass On Memorial,” PCA, Feb. 12, 1919: 1–2.
  14. “Rotarians Interested In Plans For Memorial For War Dead,” PCA, Feb. 22, 1919: 5.
  15. Economic History Services: http://www.eh.net/hmit/ppowerusd/
  16. “Mass Meeting To Pass On Memorial,” PCA, Feb. 12, 1919: 1–2.
  17. “Proposed Memorials For War Heroes Are Widely Discussed,” PCA, Feb. 15, 1919: 4.
  18. “Final Decision On Memorial Is Expected Today,” PCA, Mar. 24, 1919: 6.
  19. “Memorial Park Proposal Wins Warm Approval,” PCA, Mar. 28,1919: 1.
  20. Irwin Property Makes Ideal Site For Park As Memorial To Men Of Hawaii Who Served,” PCA, Mar. 30, 1919: 1.
  21. “Veterans Plan to Launch a Post of Legion Here,” PCA, Aug. 29, 1919: 1.
  22. Marcus Duffield, King Legion (New York: Johnathan Cape & Harrison Smith Inc, 1931) 5.
  23. “A Suggestion,” PP, Feb. 1, 1921: 3.
  24. CJS Group Architects. Final Historical Background Report Waikiki War Memorial Park and Natatorium (City and County of Honolulu, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, 1985) 2.
  25. “Proposes Aid for Memorial Funds,” PCA, Jan. 9, 1919: 1.
  26. Thomas A. Rumer, The American Legion: An Official History 1919–1989 (New York: M. Evans & Co, 1990) intro.
  27. Christina K. Schaefer, The Great War: A Guide to the Service Records of all the Worlds Fighting Men and Volunteers (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co, 1998) 161.
  28. “Beautiful Park Is Dedicated To Memory Of Men In Great War,” PCA, Nov. 12, 1919: 1.
  29. “American Legion Plans Memorials At Waikiki Park,” PCA, Aug. 10, 1920:1.
  30. Mullgardt was well-known both locally and nationally: he had designed the Honolulu Commercial Center (1919–1921) and, along with Bernard Maybeck, Mullgardt was on the Architectural Commission of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco (February 20–December 4, 1915).
  31. “Memorial Architects To Look Over Plans,” HA, June 14, 1922: 3.
  32. Ralph S. Kuykendall, Hawaii in the World War (Honolulu: The Historical Commission, 1928) 451–452.
  33. “Successful Architects Conception Of Hawaii’s $250,000 Memorial,” HA, June 21, 1921: 1.
  34. William H. Jordy, American Buildings and Their Architects: Progressive and Academic Ideals at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1976) 279.
  35. “Proposed Memorials For War Heroes Are Widely Discussed,” PCA, Feb. 15, 1919: 4.
  36. See “Tentative Sketch of Memorial Natatorium proposed by American Legion,” McCarthy—Territorial Departments War Memorial Commission, AH.
  37. James M. Mayo, War Memorials as Political Landscape: the American Experience and Beyond (New York: Praeger, 1988) 61.
  38. Mayo 61.
  39. George L. Mosse, Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars (New York & Oxford UP, 1990) 48.
  40. Mayo 88.
  41. Paul Fussell, Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War (New York: Oxford UP, 1990) 21–22.
  42. See United Veterans’ Service Council Records, AH. The seven soldiers killed in action in France were Private Louis J. Gaspar, Sergeant Apau Kau, Private Antone R. Mattos, Private John R. Rowe, Private Henry K. Unuivi, Manuel G.L. Valent Jr. (rank unknown), and Captain Edward Fuller. There is contradictory information about Manuel G.L. Valent (or Valente), Jr. (rank unknown). His home address is listed as Aiea, O‘ahu, and he was attached to Co. L. 298th Infantry. He was either killed in action or died in service—on either July 18 or Sept. 30, 1918. The Star Bulletin says “Died in Service,” in September 1918, but UVSCR card refers to him as “KIA.” See also “Hawaii Men Who Wear Wound Stripes: War Leaves Its Mark on 14 Island Heroes,” HSB, May 10, 1919: 3.
  43. David Kennedy, Over Here: the First World War and American Society (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1980) 214.
  44. Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory (Oxford UP, 2000) 21.
  45. Fussell 22.
  46. John Bodnar, “Public Place in an American City: Commemoration in Cleveland.” Commemorations: the Politics of National Identity. John R. Gillis. (Princetown UP, 1994) 78.
  47. Mayo 58.
  48. Kennedy 179.
  49. Charles Lamoreaux Warfield, History of the Hawaii National Guard From Feudal Times to June 30, 1935 M.A. thesis (U of Hawai‘i, 1935) 78.
  50. Warfield 72.
  51. The figures may be underestimates: there was also a Naval Militia of the Territory of Hawai‘i, which was established in 1915. At the outbreak of war with Germany, the Naval Militia was federalized and 50 enlisted men and officers were accepted into federal military service. See Warfield, 69–70.
  52. Franklin Odo and Kazuko Sinoto, A Pictorial History of the Japanese in Hawai‘i 1885–1924 (Honolulu: Hawai‘i Immigrant Heritage Preservation, Department of Anthropology, BPBM, 1985) 208.
  53. Gary Y. Okihiro, Cane Fires: The Anti-Japanese Movement in Hawaii, 1865–1945. (Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1991) 108.
  54. “Weak Welcome Is Given To Soldiers: General Public Is Not Turning Out To Meet Trains From Schofield Barracks,” PCA, Jan. 30, 1919: 1.
  55. Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967) 13, 54.
  56. Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth (New York: Avon, 1982) 122.