The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:01 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Billie Tsien, Chair
Hon. Hazel Ruth Edwards, Vice Chair
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Peter Cook
Hon. Lisa Delplace
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Hon. Justin Garrett Moore
Staff present:
Thomas E. Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Christopher Berger
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 17 October meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the October meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the minutes. Mr. Luebke said the document will be available to the public on the Commission’s website.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 16 January, 20 February, and 20 March 2025. He noted that no Commission meeting is scheduled in December; the Old Georgetown Board will hold a December meeting, previously published for 12 December but revised to be held on 5 December to better accommodate holiday scheduling.
C. Report on the approval of artworks proposed for acquisition by the Freer Gallery of Art. Secretary Luebke reported Chair Tsien’s recent approval of the Smithsonian Institution’s proposed acquisition of thirteen Japanese lacquer objects and paintings for the permanent collection of the Freer Gallery of Art. The artworks, from the estate of collector Jacqueline Avant, date from the 18th to the early 20th century; they include decorated boxes and other objects that were typically made for export, as well as two scroll paintings by 19th-century artists already represented in the Freer’s collection.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting.
Appendix I – Government Submissions Consent Calendar: Mr. Hart said that no changes have been made to the draft consent calendar, which includes 21 projects. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said two cases listed on the draft appendix with unfavorable recommendations have been removed and are being held open for consideration in a future month (case numbers SL 24-044 and 25-011), and the recommendation for one case (SL 25-014) has been changed to be favorable based on the applicant’s revisions. The recommendations for ten projects are subject to further coordination with the applicants, and she requested authorization to finalize these recommendations when the outstanding issues are resolved. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix. (See agenda item II.E for an additional Shipstead-Luce Act submission.)
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Berger said one case listed on the draft appendix has been removed and is being held open to allow more time for the completion of design revisions (case number OG 24-337), and the recommendations for two cases (SL 25-001 and 25-021) have been updated to note the receipt of supplemental materials. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the revised Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.D.1, 3, and 6, and II.E. Secretary Luebke said that the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without a presentation.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 21/NOV/24-3, District of Columbia Archives, Van Ness Street, NW, near International Court, NW. New building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 20/JUL/23-5)
Secretary Luebke noted the Commission’s two previous reviews of this project, which has undergone extensive refinement. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the final design.
3. CFA 21/NOV/24-5, Malcolm X Elementary School, 1500 Mississippi Avenue, SE. Renovations and additions to existing building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 18/JUL/24-4)
Secretary Luebke noted the Commission’s previous review of this project and the subsequent design revisions. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the final design.
6. CFA 21/NOV/24-8, Upshur Recreation Center, 4300 Arkansas Avenue, NW. New building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke noted the Commission’s satisfaction with the submitted proposal. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the concept design.
E. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
SL 24-160, 471–473 H Street, NW. Renovations and additions to existing buildings. Concept.
Secretary Luebke said the proposal would create affordable housing within and above two small historic buildings, including a tall addition with a small footprint at the rear of the site. Mr. Cook suggested continued consultation with the staff to refine the design, particularly the west facade of the addition, the exterior color, and the proportions of the facade panels. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission approved the concept design with this comment.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.
B. Arlington National Cemetery
CFA 21/NOV/24-1, Arlington National Cemetery, 1 Memorial Avenue, Arlington, Virginia. Feasibility study for Memorial Avenue Area Development Plan. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the U.S. Army’s feasibility study for changes to the Memorial Avenue area at the main entrance to Arlington National Cemetery. He noted that this is one of several area development plans at the cemetery that are components of the installation master plan. The Army is focused on the Memorial Avenue corridor after the transfer of jurisdiction of this property from the National Park Service was finalized several years ago. This feasibility study is intended to address numerous existing problems and to outline a vision for the main entrance to the cemetery as approached from Washington’s monumental core. The proposals are intended to reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflicts, clarify pedestrian flow, improve the arrival experience for visitors, meet current security screening standards, better accommodate all transportation modes, and provide for more interment space.
Mr. Luebke said the feasibility study designates several subareas: vehicular arrival, parking garage screening, welcome center/entrance plaza, tram connection, and two columbarium areas. In general, the study envisions significant changes to the existing conditions that include shifting the vehicular access point to the parking garage further east; adding vehicular screening for cars and buses; demolishing the existing welcome center and replacing it with separated screening, restroom, and welcome center structures; and upgrading visitor amenities, restroom facilities, and the tram experience. He noted that the feasibility study is considered a framework, and the individual projects will be reviewed as they are developed in the future. He asked Col. Andrew Wiker, the director of engineering for Arlington National Cemetery, to present the study.
Col. Wiker said this concept framework is for a very important component of Arlington National Cemetery because of Memorial Avenue’s role as the main entrance for funeral attendees and visitors. He provided statistical background information on the typical yearly activities at the cemetery: there are more than 6,000 funeral services, more than two million visitors by car and foot, and more than 1,000 ceremonies that include dignitaries.
Col. Wiker presented the context of Memorial Avenue and indicated the area that was transferred from the National Park Service to Arlington National Cemetery in 2022. This transfer was the impetus for reimagining the entry sequence and focusing on improvements to this area by proposing multiple projects, some of which have already been implemented. One urgent project has been to provide adequate foundations beneath the pylons framing the western end of Memorial Avenue, straightening them and preventing their collapse. Current projects include correcting some of the avenue’s pavement deficiencies and repairing the fountain at the Military Women’s Memorial at the avenue’s west end.
Col. Wiker described the vehicle and pedestrian conflicts that occur on Memorial Avenue as visitors arrive from Metrorail, by bicycle, and in vehicles entering the parking garage. He noted that pedestrians, upon entering the welcome center, will need to go through mandatory security screening; however, the existing welcome center was not originally designed to accommodate this function, resulting in tremendous challenges for large numbers of visitors to enter through the security screening. He said an improved welcome center is needed to provide visitors a better understanding of what the cemetery means. He explained that the existing welcome center does not have an intuitive flow, and groups congregate in different areas as people wait in line at the restrooms or to buy tram tickets. As visitors exit the welcome center, the next challenge is the limited area for the larger tour groups to reconvene before they enter the cemetery grounds to the west. Visitors emerge at Eisenhower Avenue, which is a conflict point between vehicles and pedestrians: it is a north-south thoroughfare through the cemetery for funeral services, service vehicles, family pass holders, and the groups performing the cemetery’s various ceremonies.
Col. Wiker presented a study for a planned series of projects that would be constructed in stages over multiple years; this divides the Memorial Avenue entrance area into six zones for more detailed planning. Zones 1 and 2 include the avenue itself and the parking garage. The vehicular entry point would be changed from its existing location, shifting eastward to the other side of the parking garage, and the new vehicular screening would be located very close to Highway 110. Planned improvements for pedestrians include new crosswalks to delineate where pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to enter and move about as they approach the cemetery, and he indicated the route for pedestrians to enter through a new screening facility. He also described the landscape improvements to fill in the gaps along the Memorial Avenue hedgerow and to plant oak trees north and south of the roadway.
Col. Wiker said that in Zone 3, the existing welcome center would be demolished and replaced with a new building. Zone 4 would provide a plaza where groups visiting the cemetery can regroup after leaving the new welcome center; wayfinding signage would be provided, and improvements are planned for the tram station and restroom facilities. At Eisenhower Avenue, a raised speed table and a small plaza on the west side would be created to benefit pedestrians. Zones 5 and 6 include two areas being studied for the potential opportunity to add above-ground burial capacity by developing new columbaria, one located north of Memorial Avenue and another south of the parking garage.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook asked if a traffic study has been conducted to understand whether the cars queuing for the new parking garage would potentially have an impact on traffic along Memorial Avenue. Col. Wiker said the traffic study anticipates that problematic impacts would not be the normal condition, although there might be challenges during major events. He added that the traffic impacts from the relocated parking garage entry road would be no different than what is occurring at the existing garage entrance.
Mr. Moore questioned if the planned Arlington Memorial Trail would be located on the cemetery’s property, and whether the new parking garage entry road would have any impact on this trail. Col. Wiker responded that the Army’s planning studies include the trail although it would be outside the cemetery’s property; he noted that the trail is being proposed by the Arlington County government. Mr. Moore emphasized the importance of creating an urban scale for the trail’s setting, and he requested more information about the tree canopy and types of plantings as well as other amenities being planned for this edge. He said the presented images, showing extensive paved areas and a lack of trees, were not very inspiring. Col. Wiker responded that the Army’s planning work for the cemetery is further ahead than the county government’s planning for the trail, but the project team will continue to engage with county officials to ensure that appropriate amenities are included.
Ms. Delplace commented that the illustration of a proposed columbarium gives it the appearance of an unrelated added element, and she recommended further study to ensure that the new columbaria are better integrated into the established design character of the cemetery landscape.
Secretary Luebke noted that the submission is a framework plan, and the Commission’s approval would allow the Army to move forward with this plan. He reiterated that the designs for individual projects would still need to be submitted to the Commission for review. Chair Tsien suggested a consensus to approve the study with the comments provided. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission adopted this action.
C. Smithsonian Institution
CFA 17/OCT/24-2, Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, 600 Independence Avenue, SW. Construction of a new building addition and landscape for the Bezos Learning Center. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 18/APR/24-1)
Secretary Luebke introduced a revised concept proposal for the Bezos Learning Center (BLC), a new building addition and landscape design on the east side of the National Air and Space Museum (NASM); the Commission approved the initial concept proposal in April 2024. The project will occupy the site of NASM’s former glass-enclosed food court, which has been demolished.
Mr. Luebke said the dynamic, curved massing of the proposed addition, derived from the concept of a spiral galaxy form, would be connected to the east end of the NASM building; the far end of its curve would open to a dramatic observation deck, the overlook terrace, with expansive views to the National Mall. The addition would be composed of two nested spiral forms, one glass and the other more solid, which would feature sloping geometries. Interior circulation would be provided by the inner curving three-story concourse, which would be wrapped with a sloping curtainwall; this concourse would define an inner courtyard and provide views outward through the courtyard to the National Mall. The new landscape would extend the design logic of the spiral form to the perimeter of the site, while recognizing the historic perimeter of rectilinear terraces at the street; he noted that the new and remnant landscapes have to maintain a balance between each other. A new astronomy park is proposed at the site’s southeastern corner, consisting of several outdoor telescopes and a new structure for the museum’s public observatory.
Mr. Luebke summarized the Commission’s previous recommendations: further study of the facade’s fin system to avoid weathering and other issues that might be related to staining; refinement of the canopies, egress doors, skylights, and the connection to the existing museum building; keeping the roof as uncluttered as possible, with a low profile for the skylight above the Overlook Terrace; treating the curving ramp on the north more powerfully as an entrance to the courtyard, to create a strong threshold into the heart of this facility; and further development of the landscape design to emphasize a sculptural quality, using trees to help define approaches while also including enough trees in the courtyard for comfort and seasonal interest.
Mr. Luebke said the design team has continued to develop the proposal, with significant refinement of the cladding systems and the geometry of the central atrium, as well as development of the landscape design. He asked Carly Bond, associate director for architectural history and historic preservation at the Smithsonian, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Bond thanked the Commission members and staff for their continuing participation in design development the historic preservation review process. She noted that a draft environmental assessment has been released for public review and comment. To present the design, she introduced architect Bryan Schabel of Perkins & Will, along with Elizabeth Kennedy of Elizabeth Kennedy Landscape Architect.
Mr. Schabel described the site at the east end of the NASM building, between Jefferson Drive and Independence Avenue; to the east of the addition, across Fourth Street, is the National Museum of the American Indian. He said the design team believes this new addition to the Mall can be timeless as well as of its time, in keeping with the Commission’s earlier guidance. The overall design is a series of elements generated by the geometry of the spiral, which provides a sense of movement and focus that relates to spiral galaxies; it will form an expressive counterpoint to the mass, solidity, and rigidity of the NASM building. He said the proposal’s scale and siting are consistent with the restaurant that previously occupied the site, similarly conceived as a pavilion within an intentional landscape.
Ms. Kennedy described the orthogonal spatial organization of the museum’s former landscape, indicating how the geometry of its terraces and offsets extended outward from the cafeteria pavilion toward Jefferson Drive, Fourth Street, and Independence Avenue. She said this orthogonal relationship organized the elements within the landscape, and the observatory structure’s former location adjacent to the NASM building’s southeast corner was treated as a “found space.” She noted that the previous restaurant addition on the site had possessed a strong axial organization, nearly symmetrical, which was incorporated into the recent design for the revitalization of the landscape around the NASM building. The hierarchical organization of the former landscape directed pedestrians toward the main entrances; it also created a contrasting, softer transition from the museum back to the Mall landscape. She said the proposed BLC landscape would make a similar transition to the larger landscape context of the Mall and the National Museum of the American Indian.
Ms. Kennedy addressed the concern about the extent to which the project would reduce the amount of green space on the site. She presented a table comparing the proportion of green space: 31 percent with the previous restaurant pavilion, and 29.25 percent for the proposed design; she added that this percentage does not include the proposed green roof area on the BLC.
Ms. Kennedy described the pedestrian circulation through the new landscape. The circulation is primarily intended to assert the architectural and spatial organization of the BLC site within the larger landscape of the Mall. The intent is also to incorporate the existing orthogonal terracing relationships into the setting of the new addition, and to supporting the programming proposed for the site areas called the learning courtyard and the astronomy park. She said the ideas of transition and connection have been further studied since the previous presentation: how to maintain the tree line and tree canopy on the site and also the tree edge along Jefferson Drive; how to negotiate the transition between the Mall landscape and the new spiral form; and how the larger landscape would support the program while also fulfilling practical functions, such as providing shade along the site’s eastern and southern exposures.
Ms. Kennedy said the proposed planting palette is very specific, rich, varied, and layered. It would feature the perennial plants used in the recent NASM landscape revitalization in areas where the original orthogonal landscape elements would remain. The design also draws on the concept of a national landscape of prairie and dark skies in much of the United States, primarily with the berms and plantings of the courtyard, whose design would also continue the tree canopy and the integrity of the Mall’s tree line. On the north, the design would be more specific about the national landscape idea by narrowing the number of plant species; the design team will work with Smithsonian Gardens to fully realize this concept within the new formal framework. On the south, night-blooming plants would be introduced to make the area come alive in the evening as part of the expanded programming in the astronomy park; the design also includes shade trees for the astronomy park terrace.
Ms. Kennedy said the two program areas within the landscape would have monolithic concrete paving that extends the existing NASM site pavement. The granite would be selected to compliment the "Colonial Rose" granite of the NASM exterior, with a matte finish for pavement and a polished finish for the planter walls. She said that further design refinement for the paved areas will consider how to extend the spiral geometry and pattern throughout; the interpretive treatment for the pavement would use concrete etching to form a variety of patterns. She illustrated one approach of creating a two-tone etched pattern through the use of colored concrete, giving a sense of depth to the finish in order to suggest a spiral pattern and star-related configurations.
Mr. Schabel presented views and illustrations of the BLC, emphasizing that the designs for the landscape and the architecture are intended to work together. The BLC addition would play off the rhythm of solid and void that defines the composition of the NASM facade along Jefferson Drive; he indicated the triple-height glass volume that would face north onto the courtyard. The primary entrance to the BLC would be directly from the east hall of the NASM interior. The BLC would also have two exterior entrances, on the south for student groups entering the NASM complex and on the north as an entrance to the BLC itself; these are designed to avoid competing with the primary entrance. The entrances would all be within a single-story volume on the west side of the BLC, acting as a transitional connection to the NASM building; a thin skylight would cast light down the NASM stone facade at the interface with the BLC, and the design of this volume is still being studied.
Mr. Schabel said the BLC is considered a "nocturnal" building because it is designed to accommodate many afterschool and evening programs, which will be visible through the glazed concourse. The heart of the interior program would be the large, double-height convening space for students on the west end of the second level; one side of this space would have breakout rooms with views of the Eisenhower Memorial to the south, and the other side would overlook the learning courtyard and the Mall to the north through the concourse. At the northeast end of the third level, a special-events terrace would thrust out from the BLC toward the Mall. The roof design accentuates the diagrammatic idea of the spiral; the primary mechanical equipment would be sunk below the roofline to be invisible from the street, and space would be available for the addition of new equipment in the future.
Mr. Schabel described the primary space of the landscape design as the learning courtyard, a place for students to gather and for public respite. He said the site’s existing perimeter walls are consistent with the proposed landscape, and they would be modified only where they intersect with new site stairs and ramps. The existing NASM loading dock along Fourth Street would remain and would be better integrated within the landscape.
Mr. Schabel described the proposed treatment of the BLC’s facades. The curving outer facade toward the south and east would be covered with aluminum plates, designed to accentuate the idea of movement. These panels would be a light warm-gray color with a slight mica fleck to compliment the NASM’s slightly darker granite. Horizontal joints between the BLC’s panels would be spaced at varied intervals based on the museum’s 2.5-foot module. As the curving wall turns to the west, a series of aluminum tapered horizontal fins would project to provide shade and cast varying shadow lines to further suggest movement, transition, and directionality. The fins would be uplit from reveals, which have been reduced to a depth of one inch; the density of the distribution of fins would diminish as the facade curves back. He added that various measures are being studied to prevent birds from perching on the fins. The curtainwall of the north-facing concourse would be constructed of vertical steel mullions and small beams on the interior; the columns and curtainwall components would be painted a light color to match the colors used for the trusses and columns in the NASM atrium. He said the project’s consulting parties have reached a consensus on all the presented materials. He noted that the consensus for the panels is a titanium color, although an alternative color is still being considered; he described the sample panels as having visual interest in their reaction to sunlight.
Mr. Schabel said the new public observatory structure, to be located within the astronomy park on the southeast side of the BLC, would be a strong presence on the site. It would be set alongside a public plaza, occupying the center of a series of arcs within the pavement representing abstractions of the planetary orbits of the solar system. Within the structure, the domed observatory would be partially wrapped by a low secondary mass containing subsidiary elements, including storage and office space and an entrance vestibule. This configuration is intended to emphasize the visual prominence of the observatory’s dome and accommodate the operational needs of the rotating dome and the telescope within. A landscaped area with seating and shade has been added on the north side of the observatory.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Noting that this is his first time seeing the proposal, Mr. Becker commended the clarity of the spatial organization diagram that was presented, but he said its strength is not apparent in the presented renderings. He observed that the idea of the spiral galaxy is essentially a plan concept; it works well with the landscape design, which he also commended, although he said the legibility of this idea is more difficult to discern in three dimensions and he thought it would be more compelling if it were simpler. He acknowledged that the project is already far advanced in its design, and he expressed support for the green roof proposal and the observatory design.
Mr. Becker cited two reasons for the removal of the restaurant pavilion from this site: it was not considered energy efficient, and it could not be expanded. He asked if these two issues have been addressed in the new proposal. He noted that the presentation’s environmental commentary had been limited to the question of resilience and the placement of chemicals, and he suggested more careful consideration of the environmental impact of the BLC’s construction and operation, including its embodied carbon impact; he observed that the design appears to contain a lot of steel, glass, and concrete. He expressed concern that the BLC could collect excessive heat and may end up being less efficient than the restaurant pavilion that it is replacing. He suggested that the project team develop an energy model for the project.
Mr. Schabel responded that the project has been developed within the framework of a broader climate action plan. He said the design team has considered the environmental issues along with the building’s appearance; for example, most of the addition’s glass would face north, and shading would be provided where the facade curves toward the south in order to minimize the impact of solar heat gain. He said the project team will consider preparing an energy model.
Mr. Becker also suggested studying whether more green roof area could be added. Mr. Schabel said this had been studied, but the decision was against this because of the cost and the potential visibility of the roof within the context of the Mall. He noted that the proposed green roofs have been placed on the lower volumes, and the larger issue of stormwater management has already been addressed throughout the site by directing runoff to an existing cistern.
Mr. Becker suggested consideration of a geothermal energy system, which might reduce the need for rooftop mechanical equipment. Mr. Schabel said that geothermal energy would be difficult here because the site is above the existing NASM loading dock. He added that the design team is pursuing a LEED Gold environmental rating; Mr. Becker encouraged this effort, noting that the new version 5 of LEED standards has an emphasis on embodied carbon.
Ms. Delplace expressed appreciation for the presentation; in particular, she cited the dynamic quality of the first spatial organization diagram for the landscape plan. However, she observed that some jarring details are apparent in the subsequent drawings that show refinements to the plan; a primary concern is how the landscape berm meets the building, where the landscape does not continue the sense of fluidity that is so important in the plan view. She emphasized the importance of retaining the original concept of a spiral spatial organization, suggesting that the spiral in the landscape does not have to resolve itself against the existing NASM building in a 90-degree angle. Another problematic area is at the entrance, where the paving hits the building but is not quite resolved. She strongly recommended further study of the spiral’s intention as it relates to the architecture, and of how the landscape interacts with the building. She expressed support for the other refinements that have been made to the landscape design, which she said are well resolved.
Ms. Kennedy said she agrees with Ms. Delplace’s concerns. Mr. Schabel asked for clarification of the problematic location; Ms. Delplace confirmed that the concern is where the berm connects with the building’s northeast corner, with a condition could be resolved with an offset. She emphasized the freshness and dynamism inherent in the spatial diagrams, particularly the first, and she advised referring to this throughout the design process to ensure that the diagram’s energy is carried through in the design.
Mr. Cook referred to an illustration of a movie being projected on the NASM building at night, and he asked if this drawing suggests that a permanent structure for a projector would be added to the building or the courtyard. Mr. Schabel said the intent is to use the museum’s stone facade as a screen for projected films; films would be projected from the building, and people would view the film from the event terrace, the courtyard, and the observation terrace. He said no additional structures are anticipated, and the details of the projector are still being worked out.
Mr. Cook said that from the viewpoint of a pedestrian he finds the perspective rendering on page 24 to be striking, although possibly problematic—it appears to show a view to the main entrance of the BLC, and yet the trees are depicted as so large that they hide the entrance. He asked if this rendering shows the trees at their mature height. Ms. Kennedy said the trees are shown at the age of five years; the current landscape intent is to continue the line of trees along Jefferson Drive, but the question of whether to interrupt this line at the entrance path is still being studied. She noted that at maturity the tree canopy will be much higher than shown, allowing pedestrians to see into the courtyard. Mr. Schabel added that the design intentionally deemphasizes these secondary entrances to the BLC, because the focus should be on the NASM’s primary public entrances, which provide access to the BLC through the museum’s interior. Mr. Cook commented that continuing the linear alignments of trees seems counterintuitive in relation to the powerful swirling diagram of the BLC, and the concern is that the addition would not be readily visible from this perspective view’s sidewalk location.
Mr. Cook’s final comment concerned the observatory structure. He recommended simplifying the low volume of supporting spaces, which he described as encircling the observatory dome like a skirt; he said the low volume is trying too hard, with the result of overpowering the larger, more important volume of the telescope dome. He recommended that the dome, and also the structure’s interaction with the landscape, should be clearly visible.
Secretary Luebke observed that the discussion had mostly concerned how well the proposal is manifesting the spiraling diagram; he said the staff has raised this concern in relation to several of the design details and has not seen a resolution. Mr. Schabel said that one wall that had been identified as problematic has already been removed from the design, although it is still illustrated in the presentation drawings. Mr. Luebke said another concern is the illustrated treatment of the western end of the south facade as it approaches the existing NASM building; the facade is shown with a simple vertical termination, in contrast to the conceptual diagram that emphasizes dynamic spiraling forms. Mr. Schabel clarified that this detail has recently been changed to an angular treatment; Mr. Luebke said this revision would be consistent with the support of the staff and the Commission for the strong conceptual diagram.
Chair Tsien suggested a consensus to approve the revised concept design with the comments provided. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission adopted this action with a request that the project team continue working with the staff. Mr. Becker voted against the motion, noting that he wants to see the design developed further before giving the project his full support.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 21/NOV/24-3, District of Columbia Archives, Van Ness Street, NW, near International Court, NW. New building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 20/JUL/23-5)
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
2. CFA 21/NOV/24-4, Correctional Treatment Facility Annex, 1900 Massachusetts Avenue, SE. New buildings and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for a new correctional treatment facility, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Department of Corrections. The site is along Massachusetts Avenue in the Hill East neighborhood of Capitol Hill; Congressional Cemetery is adjacent to the south and west. He said the project is intended to modernize the D.C. Government’s approach to justice and confinement, helping those who are incarcerated to reintegrate into society and change their lives; the program was developed through a study of best practices, surveys of staff and residents, and scientific analysis of future resident populations.
Mr. Luebke said the design team’s goals include: developing a lively streetscape to activate this part of Massachusetts Avenue; creating separate accessible entrances for staff and the public, visible from public space; developing interior spaces to maximize of daylighting and views; and creating a place to be healed that is treatment-focused and safe. The proposal is for two new buildings that would have a conventional curtainwall system and an exterior screen of perforated Cor-ten panels interspersed with reveals and openings, as well as horizontal canopy-like projections and pier support members. The steel exoskeleton would rise above the parapet, quite visibly in some places. The landscape design is largely for the public street right-of-way, including tree boxes at the curb, paved pedestrian walks, and heavily planted berms set against the building and retained by board-formed concrete walls. He asked Thomas Faust, director of the D.C. Department of Corrections, to begin the presentation.
Mr. Faust said the D.C. Department of Corrections currently operates two large buildings at this location, known collectively as the D.C. Jail: the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), each approximately 450,000 square feet. The CDF opened in 1976 and has had many operational and maintenance challenges after nearly 50 years of continuous use; additionally, the CDF’s outdated design and lack of program and treatment space have resulted in a facility that does not fully meet the current needs of its users, including its residents. The proposed complex is intended to provide modern, secure, and resilient facilities with the necessary infrastructure to address critical rehabilitation, treatment, and re-entry needs of people in the care and custody of the D.C. Department of Corrections. The new facility would allow for modernizing the approach to justice and confinement so the residents within the corrections facilities will be better prepared for returning to society. He introduced David Cheney of CORE Architecture + Design to present the proposal.
Mr. Cheney described the context for the site, which is south of the D.C. Armory and Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium; it is within the Hill East area, whose master plan was established several years ago, and he illustrated how the proposal would fit within the Hill East master plan. He presented photographs of the neighborhood context and the existing D.C. Jail complex, indicating the current condition of the CDF, the CTF, and several parking lots. The proposal would be a phased development with two major buildings; when the new facility is completed, the existing CDF would be partially demolished.
Mr. Cheney said the site is very constrained, which necessitates placing the proposed buildings at the property line along Massachusetts Avenue; relief from some zoning restrictions will be needed. He also noted that the Hill East master plan specifies a right-of-way treatment for Massachusetts Avenue that differs from the street’s built condition, and these two versions will need to be reconciled. The site has a significant grade change, and the proposed design integrates retaining walls within the landscape planter buffers along Massachusetts Avenue.
Mr. Cheney presented the site circulation, indicating the private drive system for emergency services within the complex; secure access will continue to be from 19th Street on the west and through additional secured gates. Staff parking would be under the buildings. The public and staff pedestrian entrances would be along Massachusetts Avenue, located approximately at the center of the sloping frontage to allow the first floor of each building to align with the entrance area for better security and egress. He described how the design of the buildings and streetscape are intended to allow the public, whether visiting or passing by, to feel that this complex is part of the neighborhood.
Mr. Cheney said the program for the buildings would include the D.C. Jail’s housing, a library, a medical facility, behavioral health facilities, and administrative offices. He noted that this type of facility has a considerable amount of visitation, which would be much easier than at the existing building. He described the proposed exterior, which would be a metal “scrim” wrapped around a glazed wall system; the scrim is intended to serve as a screen that would soften the facade’s appearance. The material for the scrim would be pre-weathered Cor-ten steel, perforated and folded, which would be stamped or laser cut. The support columns for the scrim would add some rhythm and order to the facade. The glazed wall system would have several different types of glass: dark spandrel glass at the floor levels, opaque glass, and translucent glass that would use either frit or film in combination with clear vision glass. He said the glass is being selected to provide the appropriate amount of daylight for the different programmatic areas of the buildings.
Mr. Cheney said the landscape design along Massachusetts Avenue would be used to create an inviting place for pedestrians to enjoy, with spaces of respite. The visitor and staff entry points would be clearly delineated within the streetscape; he also indicated the nearby door where formerly incarcerated people are released, with the design intent of helping them feel that they are being placed back into society. He concluded the presentation with several perspective renderings of the proposal.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook complimented the presented renderings but said they may be overly optimistic about whether the buildings would ever actually appear as depicted. He questioned the use of Cor-ten steel for the scrim, commenting that it might be overly dark and heavy-looking; he asked if other materials were explored. Mr. Cheney said the design team chose perforated Cor-ten steel as a material that is warm and transparent; the preference was not to use concrete, which many years ago was considered to be much more secure. He noted that the steel would be punched, laser cut, and folded, and it would be up to 80 or 85 percent open. The scrim would be composed using a series of ten panels that would be overlapped on the facade. He clarified that no other exterior materials were explored.
Mr. Lenihan thanked the project team for the presentation, and for the explanation of the modern justice philosophies that are intended to be incorporated into the design to make a more dignified experience for the people going through the correctional program. He agreed with the concern about the Cor-ten steel scrim; while acknowledging the intended architectural and artistic expression, he said the scrim could be perceived as a fence with spikes on it, which would be antithetical to the project goals. Mr. Cheney emphasized the intent to peel back the scrim as much as possible to make it feel more like a “fluid piece of a waterfall” coming down from the top of the buildings; the challenge is to make it feel open while also ensuring the building’s security.
Ms. Delplace asked about the neighboring buildings planned around the eastern end of Massachusetts Avenue, where a cul-de-sac terminus is shown. Mr. Cheney responded that the future vision is for a traffic circle and a monument at the end of the avenue, along with eventual redevelopment of the historic government buildings to the north. The correctional facility is itself a public project, and he emphasized that the proposed park-like treatment along Massachusetts Avenue could be an enjoyable public place. Ms. Delplace expressed concern that the articulation of the landscape, particularly at the pedestrian level, would be too busy for this type of use; the presented design would be more appropriate with an anchor use such as a restaurant or with large numbers of pedestrians. She commented that the landscape design is almost working against the proposed building, but she acknowledged the desirability of having meaningful spaces where people can sit within a public landscape. She suggested continued development of the landscape proposal and exploration of a simpler design with a few places of respite.
Ms. Tsien commented that the proposed facade is quite successful in breaking down the large mass of the buildings, and she supported the concept of laciness for the facade, agreeing that 80 percent penetration would be appropriate. However, she joined in expressing concern about the use of Cor-ten steel, agreeing that it is not depicted accurately in the renderings; she emphasized that this material will become very dark over time and might feel menacing. She therefore strongly recommended that the design team explore alternative choices for the material. Mr. Cook also observed that the top of the proposed exterior columns would have the appearance of a spike, which would further create a menacing character for the building. Mr. Cheney noted that the spikes are an ornamental feature, intended to reinforce the rhythm of the design.
Mr. Moore said this is a challenging project that is trying to deal with some of the most important issues in America, including mental health care as well as criminal justice. While supporting the project’s good intentions, he expressed disappointment that these intentions are not expressed in the design itself. He criticized the disingenuousness of referring to the people in custody as “residents” while presenting a design that does not have the character of a residential building or a place of care; instead, it appears to be a cage. He observed that the amount of vision glass seems rather limited, and its use is further obscured by the scrim. He recommended further development of the architecture, including the facades and materials, to achieve an appropriate design for a place where people are living and are receiving care, not a place where people are divided off and hidden. He added that the interior floorplans should be provided to better understand how the interior spaces relate to the facades.
Mr. Luebke noted the apparent lack of a consensus to approve the concept design, with some outstanding questions yet to be resolved. Chair Tsien suggested that the Commission not take an action, but instead request further development of the design by addressing the comments regarding an alternative to Cor-ten steel and the potentially fortified character of the scrim, and the simplification of the Massachusetts Avenue landscape. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
3. CFA 21/NOV/24-5, Malcolm X Elementary School, 1500 Mississippi Avenue, SE. Renovations and additions to existing building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 18/JUL/24-4)
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
4. CFA 21/NOV/24-6, Brent Elementary School, 301 North Carolina Avenue, SE. New building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposed replacement of the Brent Elementary School, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS). The site is located across Third Street from Folger Park in the Capitol Hill neighborhood; the immediate context includes two- and three-story row houses and a church. The existing school was built in 1968, with an addition completed in 2019, but the building no longer meets the needs of DCPS. Design constraints include a zoning regulation limiting the height to forty feet, and an adjacent Metro train tunnel that limits the allowable foundation depth in the northern part of the site.
Mr. Luebke said the proposal is an L-shaped three-story building of approximately 94,000 square feet, sited near the north and west property lines to engage with North Carolina Avenue and Third Street; in contrast, the existing school building is set back on the site, with the school’s existing playground along Third Street. The new building’s entrance would be at the corner of North Carolina Avenue and Third Street, and the exterior would feature a concrete rainscreen with vertical textures and a terracotta color. To help meet the D.C. Government’s requirement for energy efficiency, the project includes a green roof, solar panels, and solar shading for the south-facing windows. The site design includes several playgrounds, a paved play area, an outdoor classroom, and street trees.
Mr. Luebke asked Elise Roeder of the D.C. Department of General Services to begin the presentation. Ms. Roeder introduced architect Elise Robinson of DLR Group to present the design.
Ms. Robinson presented the context and existing conditions. She indicated Folger Park immediately to the west, Providence Park to the southwest, and a church to the northeast; the Capitol is several blocks to the northwest. The nearby row houses are primarily brick, painted in a variety of colors. While the existing building would be demolished, the intent is to maintain the abundance of street trees and the low retaining wall along much of the sidewalk edge. The existing curb cut along D Street would also remain as part of the new site design.
Ms. Robinson said the design team studied several different massing configurations for the new building; based on staff consultations with the review agencies, the proposed L-shaped configuration was selected because it follows the street frontages and aligns with nearby buildings and faces directly onto North Carolina Avenue to the northwest, Third Street to the west, and D Street to the south. This configuration results in the playground being located at the southeastern part of the site, which provides a relatively protected setting. She noted that the proposed three-story massing is within the zoning height limit of forty feet. The northeastern corner of the lower level would be angled back slightly to meet the required below-grade clearance from the Metro train tunnel; however, the upper floors would be cantilevered forward in this area to provide a consistent facade alignment along North Carolina Avenue. The loading and service area would be at the southeastern corner of the site, making use of the existing curb cut along D Street. The school’s main entrance at the northwest corner would be set amid the allées of street trees and building alignments along Third Street and North Carolina Avenue.
Ms. Robinson presented the grading plan, indicating the slight slope across the site; the existing retaining wall will continue to address the grade change at the east side of the site, adjacent to the side and rear of neighboring properties. The building’s large program would be accommodated by placing some functions in a below-grade level on the north side of the site; these include mechanical and support spaces as well as the double-height gymnasium with clerestory windows and a stage area. The wide building yard along North Carolina Avenue would be fenced for use as an outdoor classroom and the younger students’ playground. The open space on the south toward D Street would include the older students’ playground and a hard-surface playing court that would also serve to provide the minimum amount of parking required by zoning regulations. Green roofs and solar panels would contribute to meeting the DCPS requirement for energy performance.
Ms. Robinson presented several perspective views of the proposal. She indicated a third-floor setback and terrace at the bend of the L-shaped massing. The classroom facades would be organized with horizontally grouped windows and a rainscreen of large-scale, high-performance concrete panels with a terracotta color; she said the varied texture and vertical orientation of the panels is based on the neighborhood context, relating to the character of brick row house bays and reducing the perception of the school’s long horizontal massing. She added that the rainscreen would serve to unify the varied window groupings that correspond to a variety of classroom configurations. A distinctive facade treatment with colorful aluminum panels would be used near the bend of the L-shaped massing to emphasize the school’s main entrance and special spaces; the dynamic projections would form a protective overhang at the entrance, and similarly colorful lettering would identify the school’s name above the entrance. These colored panels would also be used as accents at the south and northeast ends of the building, where stairwells are located, and the vertical sunshades would provide additional protection for some windows.
Ms. Robinson requested the Commission’s advice on an alternative of angled facade projections at the northeast end of the North Carolina Avenue facade and the south end of the Third Street facade. This alternative was developed at the request of the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board to strengthen or “bookend” each end of the primary set of street facades, and also to provide a counterbalance to the emphasis on the entrance corner. She said this treatment could be successful for the two corners shown, but she did not favor repeating it at the ends of the inner set of facades along the D Street play space and parking area.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker commended the proposal as beautiful and impressive. He questioned whether the sunshades and louvers on the south facade along D Street are optimally oriented for solar protection, but he observed that this facade apparently has few windows.
Mr. Becker asked for clarification of the choice between green roofs and solar panels, and how access would be provided to the green roofs. Ms. Robinson responded that the intent is to maximize the use of solar panels, but D.C. Government regulations require a component of green roof area. The design team is studying the potential for extending the solar panels across the green roof, although this configuration may be difficult to maintain. She said the narrow green roof terraces at the intermediate step-backs may be available for student access or at least for viewing by students, but the large green roof on top of the building is not intended for student access; the northeast stairwell would extend to the roof for maintenance access.
Ms. Delplace recommended more careful development of the design for the open space along North Carolina Avenue, which is apparently part of the public space of the avenue’s right-of-way that would be used as the school’s outdoor classroom and playground space extending from the school facade to the sidewalk edge. She said the presented drawings do not adequately convey the intended character and treatment of this area, including the landscape and the play spaces. She observed that the narrower open space along Third Street appears to be primarily designed as hardscape. She asked how students typically arrive at the school; Ms. Robinson confirmed that students walk here from the neighborhood, and Ms. Delplace said the character of the sidewalk edges is therefore especially important. She commented that North Carolina Avenue is busy with traffic, and the intersection with Third Street is especially busy, necessitating the consideration of adequate screening of the outdoor student areas as part of the development of the design. Ms. Robinson agreed, noting the ongoing coordination with the landscape architect, DCPS staff, and the D.C. Government review process for designing this public space. She noted that fencing will also be required, and the design of the fencing is currently being studied. She clarified that a large amount of student bicycle and scooter parking is required, which would be provided in the open space along Third Street that appears as a paved area. She said the project team will explore these design issues further and will bring the results to the Commission.
Mr. Cook said he does not support the “bookend” alternative for emphasizing the two facade corners. He also observed that the entrance overhang was described but not well illustrated in the presentation, and he requested more information about how the colorful aluminum panels would reach the ground and define the school’s entrance; he suggested transitioning to a more open spacing of the panels at the ground level. More generally, he expressed support for the proposal and said he looks forward to further review of the design.
Chair Tsien agreed in recommending against the “bookend” alternative; she described the proposal as a very articulated building that appropriately focuses the articulation on important areas such as the school’s entrance, with no need to add unnecessary further articulation at the end corners. She suggested a consensus to approve the concept submission with the comments provided for developing the design. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission adopted this action.
5. CFA 21/NOV/24-7, Frederick Douglass Community Center, 1922 Frederick Douglass Court, SE. New building and landscape. Concept. (Previous: CFA 17/OCT/24-4)
Secretary Luebke introduced the second concept submission for a new building and landscape alterations at the Frederick Douglass Community Center, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). He said the most substantial component of the proposal is the new building, whose radial design recalls the hexagonal plan of the original community center. He summarized the Commission’s previous review of this project in October 2024; the Commission did not take an action but endorsed the general concept and expressed support for the proposed massing and radial plan. The Commission asked for several refinements, including further design development of the trapezoidal room configuration, and development of the site design to ensure suitable size and configuration of exterior elements. The Commission also requested modeling information to show how the building would meet the D.C. Government’s net-zero energy requirement.
Mr. Luebke said the project team has returned with several design modifications and additional information, including clarification of the programming for the trapezoidal spaces as flexible multipurpose rooms; the reconfiguration of some sequences and details for the play and fitness areas to improve pedestrian flow; clarification of locations for rooftop access to maintain the green roofs; and illustrations of energy model studies and of the more compact plan studies of the building’s form. He added that the project team has been very responsive in discussions with the Commission staff. He also noted that the previous review did not closely address the landscape design; he said Chair Tsien has suggested focusing on the landscape, in part because the Commission’s landscape architect, Lisa Delplace, was not present at the previous review.
Mr. Luebke asked project manager Michael Etherton of the D.C. Department of General Services to begin the presentation. Mr. Etherton noted that the project team has revised the design in response to the Commission’s comments. He introduced architect John Burke of Studio 27 Architecture and landscape architect Sharon Bradley of Bradley Site Design to present the proposal.
Mr. Burke said the proposed 14,000-square-foot building would replace the existing 1960s concrete-block building and pool house; the swimming pool would be retained, and other site amenities would be improved and expanded. Ms. Bradley presented a rendering of the six-acre site and its neighborhood context. She said the design would extend the building’s radial geometry into the site, softening the straight edges into a scalloped, organic form more appropriate to the setting. She described the landscape as unfolding like a nautilus shell around the building, creating strong connections between the interior and outdoors through visual continuity and the reflection of the indoor spaces in the surrounding landscape. The existing circulation plan would be simplified to provide a cleaner design, and fencing would be kept to a minimum.
Ms. Bradley noted the important role played by the mature existing trees in front of the existing building; these would be preserved, influencing the geometry of the new layout. The new building would be placed within the same wooded setting as the existing structure, emphasizing the importance of the site’s character to the community. The proposed entry sequence would follow an arcing route around the trees that would avoid their critical root zones and would allow enough distance to construct a generous sloped walk instead of a steeper ramp; the sloped walk would provide a single barrier-free approach to the building from Frederick Douglass Court for all visitors. Two children’s play areas would be located next to each other southwest of the building, for ages two to five and for ages six to twelve. An outdoor fitness area would be located north of the play areas, and a walkway leading west from the building would connect to a football field, basketball courts, and picnic areas on the western part of the site. An existing walking path would be extended around the football field, creating a measured loop for walking laps and providing access to a spectator area on the field’s west side.
Ms. Bradley said the existing parking lot north of the building would be enlarged to accommodate seven spaces, including barrier-free parking; the lot would be slightly reconfigured to accommodate a fenced trash enclosure. A new splash pad at the northeast would continue the geometry of the layout. The existing swimming pool on the northeast would remain; the existing picnic area to its south would be shifted slightly out from its location beneath the trees, and new trees would be planted to create a shady copse.
Ms. Bradley said the materials palette for the site furnishings would be consistent with the character of the new building. Playground elements would accommodate the DPR goals of providing multiple, diverse types of movement; the equipment would be accessible and look sculptural in order to create visual interest, especially when seen as a foreground to the building. She said the goal for site fencing is to make the fences as attractive and minimal as possible, such as through grouping areas together, while still meeting the many DPR requirements for safety. The two children’s play areas have to be separately fenced, and the proposal is to enclose them with four-foot-high wire mesh fences; the amount of fencing would be reduced by lowering the grade of the two play areas, allowing the building’s plinth to form a containment edge on their northeast side. The adult fitness area north of the play areas would not be fenced, allowing easy circulation between this area and the playgrounds. The community garden at the northwest part of the site would be fenced, as would the splash pad to the northeast, and the swimming pool would be surrounded by an eight-foot-high wire mesh fence.
Ms. Bradley said that at the request of the community, eight-foot-high wire mesh fencing would also be placed along the site’s south, west, and part of the north perimeter to deter people from cutting through the site. The height of the fence for the south segment would be reduced to four feet to create a gracious transition to the building’s entrance; the design for the eastern termination of this fence is still being studied. She added that the site’s east side does not require a perimeter fence.
Ms. Bradley described the project’s public art program. An existing mural depicting Frederick Douglass would be incorporated into the new building, and the design team is proposing that a sculpture of Douglass be commissioned from a local artist and placed in an elevated garden in front of the building. Several existing trees represent each state where Douglass lived and worked; this memorial grove would be preserved, or else new trees of the same species would be planted to continue this honorific function. Another cultural feature to be retained is an expanse of blue brick on the side of the building, which references the National Park Service’s historic Mission 66 design program; either the existing brick or new blue brick would be incorporated into the new building or elsewhere on the site.
Ms. Bradley said the planting for the site should provide a passive yet immersive experience that will educate visitors about the environment. The proposed plant palette includes native and adaptive species of trees and groundcover to create year-round interest and habitat at appropriate scales for their location. She presented the tree plan and indicated the trees that would remain, including the mature trees in front of the building, as well as the new trees that would create significant tree canopy across the site to provide shade and to serve as visual buffers. The trees in front of the building include mature zelkovas and maples, whose health would be maintained by limiting activity and preventing any construction within their critical root zones.
Ms. Bradley said that stormwater management would be provided by heavily planted bioretention areas; the intent is for these to serve as beautification elements as well as to educate people about stormwater management. Visitors would learn about the site’s environment simply by seeing these native plants and the birds and insects they attract, and by reading the interpretive signage. Their dense plantings would include shrubs, ornamental grasses, and perennials, providing a sequence of blooms and layers of texture; at their mature height, they would not obstruct sightlines. These bioretention plantings would form a visual buffer between the children’s play areas and the large playing field, and they would also be used to create visual interest along the nature trails.
Finally, Ms. Bradley presented the green roof design for the new building; these would be located on the lower roofs and would be accessible for maintenance from either the mechanical room or by ladders at the perimeter of the building. Lower roof areas would have dense plantings including larger plant materials, visible both from the ground and from interior spaces.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace asked for clarification of how a visitor would walk through the site to enter the play areas, observing that the circulation is not entirely clear from the site plan. Ms. Bradley indicated the short ramp leading down from the building to the play areas; she noted the site’s circulation challenges, such as the descending grade on the west and the placement of the new building on a plinth. Ms. Delplace asked about access to the southern play area for older children; Ms. Bradley indicated a gate at the southern end of this play area, as well as a connecting gate between the two play areas.
Ms. Delplace observed that the play area for younger children would be adjacent to the outdoor fitness area, separated by a walkway, while the play area for older children would be farther to the south; she noted that this is the reverse of the typical arrangement, in which younger children are more isolated from fitness areas because they are easily distracted. She asked about the rationale for the proposed layout. Ms. Bradley responded that the play area for younger children should be farther from the street in a more protected space that would be visible to parents using the fitness area; older children are more independent and need less immediate supervision. In addition, the play area for older children would be slightly larger, accommodating larger equipment and providing more room to run around. However, she said if the preference is to flip their locations, the geometries could be adjusted to create the right amount of space for the two play areas. Mr. Burke added that grouping the two together would allow for less fencing and thus less visual distraction; if the fitness area is placed between the two children’s play areas, additional fencing would be necessary. Ms. Delplace said she is not proposing to move the fitness area but is asking about the relationship among the three; she emphasized that outdoor fitness activities tend to be more free-form, and she questioned the decision to place the playground for younger children between two very active spaces.
Ms. Delplace asked how pedestrians would walk to and navigate around the basketball courts, particularly if people are playing there, observing that the site plan shows the path arriving at the courts’ east corner in a very tight configuration. Ms. Bradley agreed that this corner is tight; she said the proposed pavement would probably be extended to create more room for walking and also space for benches.
Ms. Delplace said she appreciates the decision to maintain several existing trees, while acknowledging the challenge; she also endorsed the proposal to expand the tree palette. However, she expressed concern about using the bioretention areas as a teaching tool, commenting on the need for a trained eye to understand how these features allow the plants to adapt to certain conditions. She said bioswales are not necessarily attractive, and appreciation of them is an acquired taste. Providing labels for the plants may be sufficient; perhaps more signage would be necessary, because typically a diverse plant palette is needed for bioswales to function properly.
Ms. Delplace asked if the proposal for a picnic area northwest of the community garden is relatively undeveloped because of the existing red maple tree in this area. Ms. Bradley said the intent is that this picnic area would be less formal to suit its use as a place where the neighbors who maintain the community garden can relax and socialize; she indicated the proposed gate in the community garden’s fence to provide a connection to the picnic area.
Chair Tsien noted that the Commission had requested this second submission for the project so that its site design, which is of fundamental importance, could be discussed in depth. Secretary Luebke said that at the previous review the Commission had provided a general endorsement of the architectural strategy for the building, with questions about programming, roof access, and how the building would function; he said the staff believes these questions have been addressed satisfactorily, and the site design has received more detailed discussion today. Chair Tsien suggested a consensus to approve the concept proposal, with the comments provided about the landscape and its development. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission adopted this action.
6. CFA 21/NOV/24-8, Upshur Recreation Center, 4300 Arkansas Avenue, NW. New building and landscape. Concept.
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
E. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
SL 24-160, 471–473 H Street, NW. Renovations and additions to existing buildings. Concept.
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
F. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 21/NOV/24-9, Congressional Gold Medal honoring Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley. Designs for a gold medal. Final. (Previous: CFA 18/APR/24-3)
Secretary Luebke introduced the revised set of design alternatives for a Congressional Gold Medal honoring Emmett Till and his mother, Mamie Till-Mobley. The revised submission responds to the comments provided by the Commission and others earlier in the year. The single obverse proposal is a design that the Commission had supported, with a refined portrait of Emmett Till as requested. The reverse alternatives include new as well as previously presented designs. He noted that the designs were reviewed earlier this week by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC); the preferences of the CCAC will be highlighted in the updated presentation. He asked April Stafford, Chief of the Office of Design Management at the Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Stafford noted that the Mint has continued to consult on the designs with Dr. Sheila Chamberlain of the Emmett Till Justice Campaign; Dr. Chamberlain is also a member of Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley’s family. She said obverse #2, the only obverse design in the current submission, was previously supported by the Commission, the CCAC, and Dr. Chamberlain; the portrait of Emmett Till has been refined, as initially suggested by Dr. Chamberlain. She presented nine alternatives for the reverse, which have been revised in response to previous comments. She noted the preference of the CCAC and Dr. Chamberlain for reverse #9, which depicts Mamie Till-Mobley lifting draped fabric from a scene of mourners at Emmett Till’s open casket and the inscription “Let the World See” in the background; their second choice is reverse #8A.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Moore and Mr. Cook expressed support for the presented preferences. Mr. Cook commented that the inscription “Let the World See” appears crowded within the composition of reverse #9, and he suggested further study of how to address this concern. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission recommended obverse #2 and reverse #9 with this comment.
2. CFA 21/NOV/24-10, 2026 Liberty Bell Non-Round Coins and Medals. Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the design alternatives for a silver medal and two denominations of non-circulating gold coins featuring the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall. These would be minted in the shape of the Liberty Bell instead of the customary round format. He noted that the alternatives have similar designs with differing details, and each alternative is illustrated with differing combinations of text for the medal and the two coin denominations. The designs were reviewed earlier this week by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC); the preferences of the CCAC will be highlighted in the updated presentation. He asked April Stafford, Chief of the Office of Design Management at the Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Stafford noted that the Mint has developed these alternatives while still considering whether to seek authorization for this program, which would be part of the nation’s semiquincentennial celebration in 2026; these designs are being submitted at an early stage to accommodate the Mint’s anticipated scheduling constraints because of the extensive program of other coins and medals for issue in 2026.
Ms. Stafford presented three sets of slightly differing alternatives for the obverse and four slightly differing sets for the reverse. Differences among the sets include the position of fireworks above Independence Hall and the treatment of the coin denomination as words or numerals; within each set, different formats are shown for the coins, which have several legally required inscriptions, and for the simpler format of the medal. She said the CCAC’s obverse preferences are obverse #3 for the coins and obverse #1 for the medal. For the reverse, the CCAC’s preferences are reverse #1A for the one-ounce gold coin; reverse #3A for the half-ounce gold coin; and reverse #1 for the medal. She noted that both of these coin reverses render the denomination in numerals—“$250” and “$125”—with the inscription “E Pluribus Unum” above Independence Hall formatted horizontally in reverse #1A and arced in reverse #3A. The larger burst of fireworks is on the left in reverse #1A and on the right in reverse #3A, and the inscription of the gold content differs, shown as “1 oz.” and “1/2 oz.”
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker asked for clarification of the size for the medal and coins. Matthew Hill from the engraving department at the Mint’s Philadelphia facility responded that the size would be slightly more than one inch horizontally and slightly less than an inch vertically. Ms. Stafford clarified that the two gold coins would have the same size but different thicknesses in order to weigh one or 1/2 ounce. Noting the small size, Mr. Becker commented that the denominations would be difficult to read as words, and he supported rendering them with numerals.
Ms. Delplace asked why the obverse and reverse fonts appear to differ, especially with the cursive lettering for the inscription “Liberty” on the obverse. Ms. Stafford responded that “Liberty” is modeled on Thomas Jefferson’s handwriting in drafting the Declaration of Independence; she welcomed the Commission’s reminder of its frequent advice to study the consistency and compatibility of the fonts for the other obverse and reverse inscriptions.
Mr. Moore agreed with the concern about coordinating the fonts. He commented that the special treatment of the word “Liberty” would be appropriate if it is directly faithful to Jefferson’s handwriting, but the treatment would be odd if it is only an approximation. He also commented that the obverse’s texture lines on the Liberty Bell’s wood yoke have a crude character reminiscent of a video game; he suggested either a more abstract treatment or a more carefully realistic study of the wood’s texture and knottiness.
Chair Tsien summarized the apparent consensus to support the CCAC’s preferences, with additional comments on the wood texturing and the fonts, including research on the authenticity of the cursive “Liberty” inscription. She noted the Commission’s agreement with the CCAC that the denominations should be written with numerals. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission supported the CCAC’s preferences with the comments provided: obverse #3 for the two coins and obverse #1 for the medal; and reverse #1A for the one-ounce coin, reverse #3A for the half-ounce coin, and reverse #1 for the medal.
3. CFA 21/NOV/24-11, Comic Art Coin and Medal Program—Batman and Wonder Woman. Designs for obverse and reverse. Final. (Previous: CFA 19/SEP/24-7, Superman)
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposed design for two sets of coins and medals depicting the comic book heroes Batman and Wonder Woman, the second and third in a series honoring the art form of comics. These non-circulating commemorative items would be available for sale to the public. He noted the Commission’s review of the first set in the series, for Superman, in September 2024; the Mint intends to issue nine sets in this series, with three per year beginning in 2025. Each design is illustrated with multiple formats: the gold coin is required to include standard inscriptions for coinage; the medals, with either a silver or clad composition, would have fewer inscriptions, and the smaller silver medal would omit the minting year of 2025. The designs were reviewed earlier this week by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC); the preferences of the CCAC will be highlighted in the updated presentation. He asked April Stafford, Chief of the Office of Design Management at the Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Stafford noted the Mint’s recent decision, subsequent to the Commission’s review of the Superman issue, that the reverse designs for the medal format throughout the series will have the character’s name arced across the top of the composition and two key character traits inscribed at the bottom—“Justice and Courage” for Batman, and “Peace and Equality” for Wonder Woman. The intent is for the obverses in this series to present a strong, iconic image of the character; the reverses would convey more about the character, the story, the key traits, or the relationship of the character to the nation and its culture.
Batman
For the Batman issue, Ms. Stafford presented four alternatives for the obverse design and three alternatives for the reverse design, each with variants for the coin and medal formats. She noted that obverse #3A is identical to obverse #3 but with the circumferential stars omitted. She said the preference of the CCAC, and also of the Warner Bros. Discovery company consulted by the Mint, is obverse #2 and reverse #2.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace observed that obverse #2 is strangely composed to align the top of the boot on the right leg with the outline of the left leg; she suggested differentiating these elements, perhaps by moving the right leg slightly forward, to improve the clarity of the design. Chair Tsien agreed, and she noted the apparent consensus to support the presented preferences. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission recommended obverse #2 and reverse #2 with the comment provided.
Wonder Woman
For the Wonder Woman issue, Ms. Stafford presented three alternatives for the obverse design and five alternatives for the reverse design, each with variants for the coin and medal formats. She said the Warner Bros. Discovery company prefers obverse #1, which has a border of stars. The preference of the CCAC is obverse #1A, which is identical but without the border of stars; she noted the CCAC’s observation that stars are included on the U.S. flag in the background. For the reverse, the preference of the CCAC and the Warner Bros. Discovery company is reverse #3.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace offered support for the CCAC’s preference of obverse #1A instead of obverse #1, agreeing that the border of stars would be an excessive design feature. Mr. Lenihan agreed, commenting that obverse #1A is a cleaner design that avoids a conflict between the perimeter stars and the flag’s stars.
Mr. Cook suggested consideration of reverse #1, which shows a figure reflected in Wonder Woman’s metallic armband. Ms. Stafford clarified that reverses #1 and #1A both depict a fiercely focused Wonder Woman in battle using her iconic bulletproof cuffs to deflect incoming fire; the reflection of enemy soldiers is seen in the cuffs. Ms. Tsien described this scene as inspirational.
Ms. Delplace offered support for reverse #2, which depicts Wonder Woman in the background and doves flying in the foreground. She said this design emphasizes peace on the reverse as a contrast to the obverse, and she supported the composition of Wonder Woman receding behind the doves. Ms. Tsien noted the intended character traits of “Peace and Equality,” which Ms. Stafford confirmed is included as an inscription in the medal version of each reverse alternative. Ms. Tsien commented that emphasizing these characteristics would be an interesting feature of the design.
Mr. Cook commented that reverse #3 has a static composition, while reverse #2 has a sense of dynamism as well as a more universal theme. Secretary Luebke noted that the Commission could recommend a different design than the presented preference or could recommend multiple designs. Ms. Tsien agreed in supporting reverse #2 instead of the standing figure of Wonder Woman in reverse #3. Mr. Moore also agreed, commenting that reverse #2 has a more global significance while reverse #3 is more narrowly situated; Ms. Delplace observed that the background for reverse #3 appears to be a non-existent city on a hill.
Chair Tsien summarized the apparent consensus to support obverse #1A and reverse #2, disagreeing with the CCAC on the reverse design. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission adopted this recommendation with the comment provided on the configuration of the legs on the obverse.
Mr. Moore asked about the involvement of the Warner Bros. Discovery company as a commercial entity working with the Mint; he questioned whether additional commercially themed programs are anticipated. Ms. Stafford responded that this interaction is a new type of relationship for the Mint, and the Department of the Treasury is proceeding very cautiously. The intent of the program, as presented to the Secretary of the Treasury, is to celebrate comic art as a uniquely American art form. As described earlier, the strategy for the designs is to highlight the character in an iconic pose on the obverse, while the reverse would explore the humanity and cultural significance of the story. The Mint’s artists are being asked to focus on these character traits and thematic values, resulting in original designs that differ from the imagery of typical commercially licensed products. She emphasized that this distinction is important for the Mint’s role of creating coins and medals that befit the nation, and she welcomed the Commission’s concern with this issue.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:07 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA
Secretary