The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:02 a.m.
Members participating:
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
Mary Catherine Bogard
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
(Due to the absence of Chair Billie Tsien, Vice Chair Edwards presided at the meeting.)
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 21 November meeting. Secretary Luebkereported that the minutes of the November meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the minutes.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcomingCommission meetings, as previously published: 20 February, 20 March, and 17 April 2025.
C. Confirmation of the approval of the recommendations for the December 2024 Old Georgetown Act submissions. Secretary Luebke asked the Commission to take a formal vote to confirm its approval of the Old Georgetown Board recommendations that were circulated and endorsed in December, when no Commission meeting was held. Ms. Bogard noted that one item has been added after the list had been circulated to the Commission: a placeholder listing at the end of the appendix for an information presentation that was given to the Board by the D.C. Department of Transportation. She said that no action was recommended by the Board for this information presentation; the Board’s comments were conveyed in a letter from the staff, and the additional listing will assist in the record-keeping process. The topic of the presentation was the D.C. Government’s development of revised design guidelines for “streateries”—outdoor diningfacilities located within public space. Mr. Luebke added that many streateries were built during the recent Covid epidemic in accordance with emergency guidelines, and the D.C. Government is now considering whether long-term policies should encourage or discourage this use of public space. While the policy study is city-wide, the Board considered its impact within the Old Georgetown area. He said this topic may be presented to the Commission in the future.
Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission confirmed its approval of the Board’s December 2024 recommendations, as revised.
D. Report on the approval of objects proposed for acquisition by the Freer Gallery of Art. Secretary Luebke reported Chair Tsien’s approval in December of the Smithsonian Institution’s proposed acceptance of two sets of objects donated for the permanent collection of the Freer Gallery of Art. The first set, from the collection of Dr. Shin-je Ghim, includes an eight-panel silk folding screen and a gilded wood sculpture of a seated Buddha; both are from Korea. The second set, from the large collection of Mary and Cheney Cowles, includes sixteen Japanese artworks—hanging scrolls, folding screen and door panels, and an album—from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He noted that the approval for Freer acquisitions is required specifically to be made by the Chair, and no vote by the Commission as a whole is needed.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the two appendices for Commission action. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting. He noted that, because of holiday scheduling, the Old Georgetown Board did not hold an early January meeting, and the customary appendix for Old Georgetown Act submissions is therefore not part of the Commission's agenda. (See agenda item I.C above for Old Georgetown Act submissions from December 2024.)
Appendix I – Government Submissions Consent Calendar: Mr. Fox said one case has been added to the draft consent calendar, for minor revisions to the previously approved design for the Malcolm X Elementary School (case number CFA 16/JAN/25-n). Other revisions are limited to minor wording changes. He noted that the appendix includes the reporting of two reviews previously delegated to the staff. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the revised Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the recommendation for one case (case number SL 25-031) has been changed to be favorable based on the applicant’s revisions. Other revisions are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. The recommendations for three 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 Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
B. National Park Service
(The publicized draft agenda included an additional National Park Service submission, for the rehabilitation of the Tidal Basin. Prior to the Commission meeting, this submission was withdrawn at the request of the applicant and rescheduled for the Commission’s February 2025 agenda.)
CFA 16/JAN/25-1, Fallen Journalists Memorial, Maryland and Independence Avenues at 3rd Street, SW (Reservation 201). Design for a new memorial. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 19/SEP/24-1)
Secretary Luebke introduced the revised concept design for the proposed Fallen Journalists Memorial, submitted by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf of the Fallen Journalists Memorial Foundation. He said that at the September 2024 review of the initial concept proposal, the Commission expressed strong support for the design and approved the concept with comments for the development of several elements: refinement of conditions at the curb, crosswalks, sidewalks, and site perimeter to ensure the memorial has a welcoming and accessible character; and further study of the specification for honey locust trees, with consideration of the design of the tree pits within the paving to ensure they would accommodate healthy tree growth. He said today’s revised concept addresses these comments and includes additional refinements: changes to the dimensions and configurations of the glass elements that form the memorial and define the central Remembrance Hall space, and modification of the central lens element displaying the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He added that other topics for the Commission to consider include lighting, signage, and test fits for special events.
Mr. Luebke asked Laurel Hammig, memorials program manager for the National Capital Region of the NPS, to begin the presentation. Ms. Hammig said the NPS has been working with the design team on the refinements, and she introduced John Ronan of John Ronan Architects to present the design.
Mr. Ronan said the presentation had been organized to follow the topics addressed in the Commission’s letter describing the September 2024 review. He summarized the components of the memorial’s design, which he described as a collection of transparent beam-shaped cast-glass elements arranged in a seemingly random manner that gradually aggregate to form a pure cylindrical space at the heart of the site; their arrangement is intended to suggest the way facts coalesce in a journalist’s story. Visitors would be placed in the role of an investigative journalist: their experience of the site would be a journey of discovery that would slowly evolve, space by space. He said the design explores dichotomies intrinsic to journalism such as opacity and transparency, distortion and clarity, or chaos and order.
Mr. Ronan presented an axonometric view to illustrate the memorial’s composition of three systems: the glass beams, the stone platform beneath them, and the grove of trees that would extend through the site. He indicated the view east to the U.S. Capitol; the entrance to the central space called the “Remembrance Hall”; and, in the middle of this space, the glass lens inscribed with the First Amendment. The perimeter treatment incudes the pedestrian sidewalks between the property line and the curb. He said the revised site plan shows the addition and relocation of trees, and the relocation and resizing of the glass beams. The sidewalks are shown as conforming to the D.C. Department of Transportation (DDOT) standards, such as the distance between tree trunks and the curb edges on both Independence and Maryland Avenues. The clear pedestrian walkway is 9’-4” wide, and a visitor walking along Independence Avenue would pass through an allée of trees before entering the memorial proper. He noted that after consultation with DDOT, additional detail is shown at the access points and curb ramps.
Mr. Ronan described the structural system that would be built to support the paved plaza; although the west side of the site is relatively flat and the east side is sloping, the same strategy would be used for both sides. All slopes would conform to maximum DDOT standards, and tree pits and curbs would follow D.C. guidelines. DDOT requires that street trees must be planted in a structural soil; he said that subsequent to the previous review, the proposal has been revised to extend this structural soil system throughout the site to ensure that all the trees would be planted in a similar condition. He noted that an existing sewer line runs directly beneath the site, and the proposal is to relocate this line beneath Maryland Avenue.
Mr. Ronan presented two alternative proposals for perimeter paving and planting areas. Because of the site’s small size, the design team’s preferred alternative would extend the stone paving across the entire site, from curb to curb. One lane of traffic would be removed from Maryland Avenue on the west side of the site, and the avenue’s median would be enlarged and planted with native species that would be complementary to both those of the new memorial and to the plantings on the grounds of the National Museum of the American Indian across the avenue. The second alternative would create a regular series of planting beds with street trees around the site’s perimeter; the rendering includes plantings of blue sedge, chosen for its coarser quality and for its color, which would complement the color of the glass beams. He said the design team has studied how people would move from the curb into the memorial. Currently the curb ramps at the street intersections are oriented diagonally; the proposal, as preferred by DDOT, would place separate curb ramps facing each street. This solution would require ancillary changes, such as moving traffic lights and streetlights; he presented a drawing of the elements to be moved, shown within the context of the option for continuous paving.
Mr. Ronan said the paths within the memorial have been widened, and an additional path has been added to connect the Remembrance Hall to the site’s southeast corner and the 3rd Street sidewalk; street trees near this corner have been moved closer to the curb edge. Throughout the pathway system, the number of dead-end routes and of protruding glass beams have been reduced to improve and clarify pedestrian circulation. More trees have been added to the memorial itself, including some closer to Remembrance Hall in response to comments from the Commission staff about the desirability of adding more shade for this space. He presented studies prepared with the new tree configuration showing the shade that would be cast at different times of day in different seasons.
Noting the Commission’s request for closer consideration of the choice of honey locust trees, Mr. Ronan said the proposal is to plant different cultivars to introduce diversity; using an alternative species of tree has also been considered. He emphasized the design intent to create a monoculture of trees in order to make the memorial identifiable from a distance, which would be possible because no other honey locust trees are in the immediate area, and to have a tree canopy that would knit together to create an almost room-like space. He described the honey locust tree’s desirable attributes. They are durable and hardy, and resistant to salt and drought, so they are often used in cities. They reach a height of fifty to seventy feet, and they have compound leaves formed of small leaflets, which do not pose issues for drains or create other maintenance problems. He said the tree’s best feature may be its canopy and the quality of shade it would cast. Because of the small leaflets, the canopy would not completely shade the area beneath it, as oaks or elms would; instead, it would cast a filtered shade that would activate the appearance of the glass beams. He said the interaction between the three systems of shade trees, glass beams, and granite paving would create the memorial experience.
In addition, Mr. Ronan said that unlike other shade trees, the honey locust does not develop a huge trunk that would eventually overwhelm the scale of the glass beams. Instead, the shape of the trunks would pair well with the strict rectilinearity of the beams, and their gray bark would also work well with the glass. He illustrated several urban spaces that are planted with honey locust trees: Paley Park (Hideo Sasaki, 1967) and Greenacre Park (Sasaki, 1971) in Midtown Manhattan, and the South Garden of the Art Institute of Chicago (Dan Kiley, 1967). He concluded that the honey locust is still the design team’s preference, and he asked landscape architect Michael Boucher to discuss the tree selection in more detail.
Mr. Boucher reiterated that the design intent is to achieve a cohesive uniformity through creating a tree canopy as a “ceiling” over the memorial space. He said the design team has sought advice about combinations of different cultivars that would be disease-resistant and possess a similar visual character so they could be mixed while creating a uniform effect. Referring to a chart summarizing the research, he indicated ‘Sunburst’ as an example of a cultivar that would be too showy and not neutral enough to work with this design. He said that as final decisions are made about how to combine trees on the site, it is important either to plan ahead and have trees reserved and grown for this project, or to carefully consider what is already available. Although different species have been considered, he noted the difficulty of finding trees that would give the same effect and complement the composition of glass elements as well as the honey locust; some species are too showy and have a heavy bloom that may require more maintenance. In addition, the diversity of plantings around the U.S. Botanic Garden to the east and the National Museum of the American Indian to the west have been considered. He said the Kentucky coffeetree has been identified as perhaps the best alternative to the honey locust; it shares many of its good attributes, such as interesting fall color, bark texture, and branching form.
Discussing the stone paving, Mr. Ronan said the current proposal is to use very large pieces of granite, laid with continuous joints running perpendicular to Maryland Avenue. Tree pits measuring 24 inches square would be located within this paving field and filled with a top layer of crushed granite to match the granite of the paving. He illustrated how the stone joints would intersect with the supports for the glass beams so the paving stones can be fitted around them.
Mr. Ronan said that eleven types of granite have been considered to date, some with a strong grain, others with a finer grain or a grain with a strong directional orientation. The preliminary conclusion of this evaluation is that the glass beams would look better in conjunction with a finer-grained stone than one with a stronger pattern; therefore, the preference is for a medium-gray granite with a fine grain and a tight color range. The proposal is to build a perfectly flat plaza, with the dimension from the top of the paving stones to the bottom of the glass beams kept uniform across the entire site, and with open joints between stones that would allow rain to run down between them. Manholes, debris chambers, and stormwater management would all conform to DDOT standards.
Mr. Ronan said the site design includes trees planted within the memorial and trees of the same species planted as street trees near the curbs, all planted on the same structural soil installation that DDOT recommends for the street trees. He presented a sectional diagram showing the proposed installation of tree pits, as well as irrigation and aeration. A steel grid beneath the plaza would support the paving stones, allowing pieces of stone to be removed if a tree needs to be replaced.
Mr. Ronan said the glass elements, configured as horizontal beams, have been further developed to address the Commission’s concerns. The first layer of beams would include some that would serve as benches; most of these would be located in the shaded part of the site, although there would be several on the sunnier east side. In the previous proposal, the beams were fifteen inches square and fourteen feet long; they have now been reduced to thirteen inches square or less, and twelve feet long. This reduction in size affects how they would be stacked and the overall height as the layers rise. The previous proposal was to stack seven layers of the same size; the current proposal is for each layer to be progressively thinner as the stacking rises. He noted that only the first layer of beams would need to serve as seating; the decreasing widths of the beams would allow the memorial to become finer and more transparent as it rises and would also make it more difficult to climb. He assured the Commission that extensive work had been done on the proposed arrangement of the glass beams. Comparing the previous proposal with the revised design, he indicated the considerable reduction in the amount of glass.
Mr. Ronan presented photographs of a physical model of the revised design along with various studies. He said the arrangement of glass beams in the first proposal was too strongly oriented in a single direction; around Remembrance Hall it resembled the motion of a hurricane. The intent is to move from a seemingly disordered, chaotic arrangement of glass beams at the site’s perimeter toward an increasingly ordered and stable composition at Remembrance Hall, which should appear to be a calm and serene space. The new composition is also intended to discourage climbing. He presented a summary of the new composition’s advantages: it would present a contrast between order and disorder; Remembrance Hall would be more porous, with openings for visual access and the flow of air through the space; the surface of the glass elements forming this space would be more irregular for better acoustics; and it would be a more efficient use of glass, with approximately fifty percent less glass by volume than in the earlier version.
Mr. Ronan discussed the project’s acoustics and lighting. The glass beams would have a diffusive surface that would scatter soundwaves to reduce the echo effect. Changes have also been made to the other two gathering spaces, the “Classroom” and the “Press Room,” to make them more enclosed, and the orientation of the Classroom has been adjusted. Lighting has been developed further: the proposal is to place a sheet of LED dials spaced in an approximately one-inch grid within a stainless-steel housing beneath the lowest layer of glass; a frosted acrylic lens would diffuse the light as it enters the glass. He presented a small mockup of this installation to illustrate the intended effect. He also showed a mockup of stacked cast-glass bricks that simulated the cubic volume of glass that light would pass through in the memorial.
Mr. Ronan described how the memorial could accommodate special events. Larger events might be held on Maryland Avenue, which would require obtaining a permit to temporarily close the street. Smaller events could be held within Remembrance Hall, which should be able to hold approximately 140 people. He said stages and seating would be rented as needed.
Mr. Ronan said signage would be located at the three entry points, most of them glass signs with laser-etched lettering. The signs outside Remembrance Hall would include a few quotations. At the east end of the site, a stainless-steel pylon would serve as signage, with details about the sponsoring foundation and the purpose of the memorial, and also as a cabinet containing controls for operations such as irrigation and lighting; he said the NPS prefers to have these controls aboveground.
Mr. Ronan concluded by presenting the proposed revisions to the First Amendment lens element intended for the center of Remembrance Hall. The previous version was flat, set within the horizontal ground plane of the plaza. The revised version is proposed to be tilted upward, so that visitors standing at the best location to read the text would be able to raise their eyes to see the Capitol dome directly beyond, enabling them to make the intuitive connection between a free press and democracy. A metal plate beneath the lens would have fittings for fiber optic cables to provide lighting for the lettering at night.
Vice Chair Edwards thanked Mr. Ronan and invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Mr. Becker commended the proposal as poetic and beautiful. He expressed appreciation that the design team had followed the Commission’s advice to study the memorial’s acoustic properties and the issue of climbing. However, he observed that visitors will almost certainly be tempted to climb, or at least try to climb, the stacked glass beams, and he asked if more could be done to discourage this behavior. He said people would likely want to climb up to sit on the top of the structure, and the drawings of the proposed arrangement suggest that reaching the highest course would not be difficult. He recommended giving the highest course of beams a canted top surface or some other treatment to deter climbing.
Mr. Ronan emphasized the measures that have been taken to discourage climbing, and he said this issue was taken seriously. Mr. Becker acknowledged that the redesigned interior of the cylindrical Remembrance Hall addresses this concern; however, he said climbing to the top of the memorial still seems possible by using lateral glass beams as steps. Mr. Ronan said the earlier proposal had an almost stairstep condition, but the revised configuration introduces additional perpendicular elements, so that the structure would be much more open and with fewer steps. He agreed with Mr. Becker’s assessment that a visitor could still climb the structure, but he said the design team has gone to great lengths to discourage climbing; he offered to pursue the suggestion to slope the top surface of the top beams.
Mr. Becker suggested showing the revised memorial design to someone from a climbing gym and asking what would be needed to prevent climbing. He acknowledged that the memorial would be elegant but said that he would not want it to become a “monument to the fallen tourist.” He also suggested considering the inclusion of infrastructure for erecting temporary tents or tarps for shade when events are held at the memorial. He concluded by emphasizing his overall support for the design. Mr. Ronan thanked him and said the design team can look more closely into the issue of providing shade for events.
Mr. Cook agreed that this would be a beautiful and wonderfully poetic memorial. However, he said he too has reservations about its appeal for climbing: on a slightly rainy or sleety day, a child might be tempted to walk or jump on the structure and could slip. While noting the potential to detract from the design’s poetry, he asked if any abrasive treatment could be given to the top surface of the lowest level of glass beams to reduce the likelihood of slipping. Mr. Ronan responded that to achieve the desired lighting effect, the top surface of the beams would probably be sandblasted with different textures, which would make them non-slip. He indicated the presented illustration of the proposed lighting, which shows the sides of a beam sandblasted and thus slip-resistant; this textured treatment would also hold the light inside the glass beam and diffuse it, which would be more effective than glass with a clear, polished surface. He said an alternative treatment is for the sides of the beams to be polished and the top surfaces textured. Mr. Cook said these are questions to consider as the design is developed further.
Mr. Cook asked how the memorial site would be affected if the sewer line cannot be relocated to run beneath Maryland Avenue. Mr. Ronan said he does not think the relocation will be an issue; however, if it can’t be moved, the foundation of the glass beams would be designed to not extend into the two-foot-wide area corresponding to the location of the sewer line. He said this would require changing the angle of the beams and slightly shifting the location of a tree near the Classroom space.
Mr. Moore joined in commending the design, commenting that it will expand the idea of how commemorative spaces are made. He also expressed appreciation for the functional aspects of designing some of the lower beams to serve as seating. However, he questioned the proposal to reduce the depth of the seating surface on these beams from fifteen to thirteen inches, or perhaps less if the beams have an eased front edge, which would offer a fairly limited amount of seating surface. Notwithstanding the presented illustration of an apparently small-statured person sitting comfortably on the beam, he said the seating may be inadequate for a full range of people, and particularly for people who most need to sit. He also observed that seating would be located only in the Classroom and Press Room areas at the memorial’s perimeter, not within the Remembrance Hall.
Mr. Ronan responded that the earlier dimension of fifteen inches square was driven less by the bench height and more for an adequate clearance height: the proposal had envisioned seven tiers of glass beams, with visitors walking under the lintel formed by the sixth tier to enter Remembrance Hall. However, this configuration resulted in a seat that was considered to be a little too high. He said the design team researched the dimensions of bleachers and seats at furniture stores, and the current proposal is much more consistent with these models. He added that no standard is established for a bench height. Mr. Moore clarified that his concern is with the bench’s depth, not its height. He stressed that this issue is important because sufficient depth makes seats suitable for people of different sizes and ages. Mr. Ronan maintained that thirteen inches is a reasonable depth; he said that metal bleachers for sporting events have seats that are nine inches deep.
Mr. Moore said he would like the question of the depths of the seats to be studied further. He noted that the precedents referred to in the presentation include many wonderful public spaces in New York, but the seating for this memorial’s public space should provide greater accessibility and inclusivity. He added that public seating in New York is required to have a depth of eighteen inches; while not necessarily asking that this parameter be met, he emphasized that thirteen inches seems very small. He acknowledged the related issue of the beams, and he expressed confidence that a good balance between height and depth can be found with further study. Mr. Ronan agreed to look at this again; he added that the design team ensured that the proposal conforms with accessible design standards. Mr. Moore noted that a more generous depth may be necessary only for the beams that will serve as benches, not necessarily for the rest of the beams.
Mr. Lenihan said he appreciates how this wonderful design has evolved, and he supported the proposal to make the construction of the stacked beams less dense. However, he agreed with Mr. Becker that the reduction of the perimeter elements would actually create more voids than in the previous proposal, and he emphasized the need to consider how children could climb on these beams to ensure they do not fall into the voids. In addition, he observed that the stacked glass beams are illustrated as being lit from below the bottom beam, and he questioned whether the beams spanning voids would really glow as intended. Mr. Ronan said the design team shares the concern about lighting; the aim is for the lighting to create a soft glow, and lighting of the individual glass elements has been studied. The next step is to create a full-scale mockup of the stacked glass beams, along with a mockup of the lighting, to evaluate the amount of light that would reach the top of a wall stacked eight beams high, in order to decide whether it should be supplemented. He added that a bright light is not desired because it would compete with the Capitol dome, while a soft glow would help visitors navigate through the site at night. Mr. Lenihan noted that the study will also need to give an accurate understanding of how the lighting would affect the glass beams that are not stacked.
Ms. Delplace thanked the project team for the responsiveness to the Commission’s questions and comments, and she said this will be a beautiful memorial. She asked for clarification on several issues, beginning with the discouragement of skateboarders. Mr. Ronan responded that after a full-scale mockup is built, the design team will hire someone to try skateboarding on it and to advise them how to make it less enticing to skateboarders. He said some deterrent strategies have already been studied, such as casting bumps into the molded glass beams.
Ms. Delplace asked if the intent is to combine three different species of honey locust. Mr. Boucher said the goal is to create a uniform appearance in the tree palette but also to be satisfied with how the plantings will function as a biological system. Both of the planting alternatives could use either two or three cultivars of the same species if they are similar enough in form; their characteristics need further study. The project team has gotten advice from numerous arborists, including from the NPS, to determine what will work. He said the preference is to not mix species of honey locust, because they differ too much from each other; however, this can be discussed further as the research becomes more specific. Other options are under consideration, including a distributed mix of species to create a mottled effect that would provide a unified look overall; however, if the study suggests that planting just two cultivars would provide the desired effect, this could be very successful. Ms. Delplace commented that the strange appearance of young Kentucky coffeetree, for example, would detract from the experience of the memorial space, and she believes that selecting cultivars of the same species is the appropriate approach.
Ms. Delplace asked whether the proposal includes planting strips along the curbs of 3rd Street, Maryland Avenue, and Independence Avenue. Mr. Ronan said that if planting strips are included, the design team’s preference is to place them only along Independence and Maryland Avenues in order to be consistent with the existing context of curbside plantings. He said 3rd Street does not currently have curbside plantings, and new plantings there may burn because they would get too much sun. Mr. Boucher added that the plantings proposed beneath the street trees on Maryland and Independence Avenues also have to be tolerant of more sun. He emphasized the difficulties of planting along 3rd Street: the site opens at the east to the view of the Capitol; the east end serves as an arrival plaza, and a strip of planting would interfere with this function; and no street trees would be planted along 3rd Street, so planting strips in this area would appear anomalous compared to the avenue frontages with street trees. He said locating street trees in combination with planting strips or verges makes sense, but this treatment is not desired along 3rd Street.
Ms. Delplace asked about any existing planted verges along Independence Avenue, between the curb and the sidewalk. Mr. Ronan said the existing conditions at the site include a grass verge, as illustrated in the appendix to the submission materials. Ms. Delplace clarified that she is also considering the context of the blocks beyond the site, for consistency along the avenue. Mr. Ronan said a curbside planting strip does not exist on the blocks adjacent to the site, which is why the proposal is to extend the paving from curb to curb. Mr. Boucher added that simplicity is always a touchstone as the design team looks at the potential combinations of planting strips and pavement. Planting strips are most appropriate in combination with street trees, instead of just installing plantings to avoid having more paving. He added that the addition of a new path at the east would make this side a gathering space, while the west side would function more like a plaza.
Ms. Delplace said that because of the large amount of traffic on the six-lane roadway of Independence Avenue, which is particularly heavy during rush hour, she suggests adding planting along this edge. However, if the adjacent blocks do not already have planted verges, then a verge should not be introduced here, because consistency is important along this stretch of Independence Avenue. Mr. Ronan reiterated that no planted verge is present on any of the blocks surrounding the site, as illustrated by photos in the presentation booklet’s appendix.
Vice Chair Edwards agreed with the other Commission members that the project is beautiful, but she observed that all the renderings show the memorial in the same weather conditions—in the warmer months, summer in particular. She said Washington’s residents and tourists visit its many sites throughout the year in varied weather. She encouraged the design team to provide illustrations depicting how the memorial would appear in rain, cold, and snow, and to consider how slick the glass would become in bad weather, as Mr. Cook had discussed. She agreed with Ms. Delplace that the design team should consider the impact on the memorial of Independence Avenue’s heavy rush-hour traffic.
Secretary Luebke summarized the Commission’s comments from this second concept-level review; he described the concerns as secondary issues that need to be resolved. He asked if the Commission wants an additional submission prior to reviewing a final design, noting the staff’s suggestion that the Commission should review the response to these issues, and also review in greater depth the more technical questions about signage and lighting, prior to the final design submission. He also asked the Commission to address some of the small design revisions, including the lens piece in the central space and the steel pylon sign on the east. He noted that the pylon sign’s internal equipment space is designed to be large enough for present needs, but it would not be easily enlarged if more equipment is needed in the future.
Ms. Delplace said the Commission’s commentary was detailed, and many of the questions will be resolved in the mockups, such as how the glass should be treated and where the interstitial spaces between the glass beams would be. She described these issues as refinements that the staff would see as part of the mockups and samples; she therefore suggested approving the revised concept submission with the request that the next steps be reviewed by the staff. For the pylon sign, she observed that its size and shape can be refined, but the proposed treatment is probably the most appropriate; she suggested further review by the staff.
Concerning the glass lens with the First Amendment text, Ms. Delplace said she understands why tilting it has been proposed; she suggested that the staff could review a mockup, although she expressed concern that the proposed tilt would force people to look at it in one particular way. Secretary Luebke said the staff’s concern is that the raised rear side, with a sloping stone curb beneath it, would become a tripping hazard. Eventually the NPS would have to install a permanent barrier around it, such as a post-and-chain system or bollards, similar to what the NPS installs at other memorials and public spaces. He said the question is whether to simply leave the lens flat and not have to deal with a barrier in the future, or to build the beautifully tilted lens and then at some point need to install a barrier around it. He also asked the Commission to consider whether creating a visual connection between the lens and the Capitol dome is important enough to accept an eventual barrier. He cited the examples of the added barrier at the pool in front of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the ongoing design process for a potential barrier at the proposed Peace Corps Commemorative Park to prevent people with impaired vision from walking into the overhanging sculptural hands. He suggested anticipating this design problem; Ms. Delplace and Mr. Moore agreed.
Ms. Delplace said the previous design for the flat lens set into the plaza was quite nice, with a legibly sized font and an interesting and tactile quality; children would be able to stand right on top of the lens. Mr. Cook agreed in preferring the flat version, commenting that it would be more in keeping with the simplicity and elegance of the memorial. He said tilting the lens makes it seem a little overworked, and he observed that the rear side facing the Capitol appears unresolved. Mr. Moore also agreed, particularly because of the likelihood that a barrier would soon need to be added. He noted that the Empty Library memorial in Berlin is set beneath a flat glass plane within the pavement, and encountering that surface is very powerful; people engage it in different ways and in different orientations.
Mr. Luebke said the staff will work with the project team on all these issues, and he summarized that the Commission has provided detailed comments to guide the staff’s review. He asked for clarification whether the Commission members prefer to extend the paving pattern out to the curb, without a planted strip at the curb. Ms. Delplace said she agrees with this choice. Mr. Becker, noting the warming climate, said that more relief from paved surfaces would be better, especially during the summer. He suggested that a solution may be to add planting to adjacent blocks as well as at the memorial site, and the staff could address the details. While acknowledging the desirability of a consistent streetscape design along Independence Avenue, he anticipated that more planting may be introduced in the adjacent blocks in the future, and the memorial project could plan for this evolution. Ms. Delplace said the Independence Avenue sidewalks can be crowded, especially for special events, and a cleaner curb-to-sidewalk relationship is probably more important than increasing the plantings. She said that adding a planting bed to the median on Maryland Avenue would be a significant improvement, and with its addition the overall project would actually gain green space. She said that omitting the planted verge along Independence Avenue, for the memorial site and adjacent blocks, would be a consistent treatment along the corridor that is legible for pedestrians, including those with poor vision. Mr. Becker said he agrees with this conclusion.
Mr. Luebke suggested that the Commission consider taking an action on the revised concept, with the expectation that the staff will work with the project team on the development of the design, and the Commission will then review the final design. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the revised concept submission and requested continued consultation with the staff leading to a final design submission for the Commission’s review.
C. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 16/JAN/25-2, Fort Davis Recreation Center, 1400 41st Street, SE. New building and landscape improvements. Concept. (Previous: CFA 17/OCT/24-5)
Secretary Luebke introduced a second concept submission for the replacement of the Fort Davis Recreation Center, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services (DGS) on behalf of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation. He noted that the Commission did not take an action on this project when it was previously reviewed in October 2024; the Commission provided comments, including a request for further exploration of the adaptive reuse of the existing building, along with consideration of the energy differential between adaptive reuse and entirely new construction. If reuse of the building were found infeasible, the Commission requested an updated concept submission with additional information on the proposed entrance canopy and the rear facade along the alley, as well as further consideration of incorporating values of inclusivity and connectivity in the site design with an emphasis on gates, ramps, and plazas instead of potential barriers such as fences.
Mr. Luebke said the project team has explored the possibility of reusing the building and has also further developed the design for a new building. He noted that the Commission’s staff has inspected the property to better understand the difficulty with reusing the existing building; much of its original fabric has been compromised by numerous sympathetic and unsympathetic alterations. The project team has considered reusing the existing building’s main space, developing test fits of the program with this space remaining, but the conclusion is that even more modifications to this space would be needed, further compromising its integrity. The proposed concept for a new building has been refined to include simplified facades and two equally sloped roofs on each building volume. For the site design, the perimeter fence remains part of the proposal, and the presentation will describe changes to the entrance plaza and accessibility.
Mr. Luebke asked DGS project manager Saun Cox to begin the presentation; Mr. Cox introduced architect Ben Scarbro of Perkins Eastman DC to present the design.
Mr. Scarbro began with an overview of the neighborhood context, indicating nearby facilities including the Francis A. Gregory Neighborhood Library and the Anne Beers Elementary School. He described the site conditions, including a forty-foot topographic drop from north to south. He also noted the community interest in this project; most of the recreation center’s users live within a 15-minute walk, and elderly residents typically drive to the facility and park on the street.
Mr. Scarbro said the design team has developed additional information for the Commission demonstrating that the existing building does not meet the program requirements, and that much of the original building would need to be further altered if it is reused. He presented drawings and photographs from 1969, when the building was originally constructed, to compare its original design to the current conditions. He indicated several changes over the years: parts of the original walls have been removed to accommodate new additions; the original tower feature has been reconfigured and reduced in height; and the roof has been replaced. The only original features of the building that are now recognizable are the walls and windows of the multipurpose room; however, all the components within this room have been removed, including balconies, a small stage, and a set of internal stairs. The original vertical windows are now the only source of natural light into the multipurpose room; the original skylights had been removed when the tower was reconfigured. Ramps were installed internally and externally to address floor level differences and the site’s topographic changes, but none of these are compliant with modern accessibility standards, and site accessibility remains a concern. Some of the existing site ramps were intended to improve access, but unfortunately they terminate at steps, which negates their usefulness. He noted that barrier-free access is one of the issues that this project is intended to address.
Mr. Scarbro described several additional concerns with the existing building: children have been injured by bumping into the rough concrete walls; the walls lack adequate insulation; the multipurpose room lacks adequate sunlight because it has few windows; and the surface of the walls is difficult to clean. He said that addressing these concerns would require adding insulation for energy efficiency, adding drywall to the interior in order to decrease injuries, and installing additional windows for increased sunlight. He then presented a graph showing how a new building would, in the long run, use less overall carbon than adaptive reuse of the existing building. He said the design team explored several options for incorporating elements of the 1969 building; however, these designs would likely require the removal of so much original fabric of the building that the reuse would not be worth the effort. He summarized the conclusion that reusing the 1969 building is not feasible.
Mr. Scarbro then presented the proposed concept for a new building. He described the project’s six design principles: providing both a city front and a park front; creating interior spaces that have visual and physical connection to the exterior; providing a public area of the building that is welcoming and can be used for community display or activities; designing the entrance to be appropriately scaled and easily seen by the public, in a safe and accessible location; creating an exterior landscape that is varied and easy to maintain; and minimizing adverse views. He said the existing site, which is enclosed with a fence, includes walking paths, a basketball court, a tennis court, a picnic pavilion, a playground, a splash park, and a baseball diamond, as well as the main recreation center building. The community has requested barrier-free paths throughout the park, new playgrounds for families, and a new recreation center building. The interior program includes an indoor track, a dance studio, a gymnasium, a gaming lounge, and a multipurpose room that could be separated into smaller rooms when needed.
Mr. Scarbro presented several massing diagrams and floorplans for the building to address the Commission’s previous concern regarding the scale of the building, especially the gymnasium’s presence along the alley across from existing two-story row houses. The design team’s preferred option would use two canted roofs—one over the two-story gymnasium volume, and another covering a smaller volume containing the main entrance, administrative rooms, and meeting spaces. In response to the Commission’s previous guidance, the design has been simplified in several ways: by extending the roof to provide shelter at the entrance; by removing a bump-out on the east facade that previously contained a small fitness center; by lowering the gymnasium roof height by four feet along the alley; and by incorporating horizontal fins on the gymnasium’s southern facade. He noted that the gymnasium roof design is still being studied and will continue to evolve.
Regarding the Commission’s comments on the proposed landscape, Mr. Scarbro said that the plaza at the front entrance has been revised to create smaller spaces by incorporating additional planted areas, with more boulders and benches for seating and gathering. The entrance plaza may also include an existing nearby commemorative bench honoring a local woman. While acknowledging the Commission’s concern about too much fencing on the site, he said the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation has requested the continuous perimeter fence because of security concerns; the design team is continuing to study the potential for reducing the height of fences on the interior of the site.
Vice Chair Edwards thanked Mr. Scarbro for the presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker commended the project team for the thoroughness of the investigation regarding adaptive reuse; he said the presentation has made a persuasive case against reusing the existing structure, which he acknowledged is beyond preserving.
Mr. Becker asked for clarification of the barrier-free route to the proposed recreation center, and also about the possibility of incorporating a terrace on the southern facade of the gymnasium volume. Mr. Scarbro said that barrier-free access is challenging on the site because of the topography, and the design team has been exploring ways to simplify the circulation. He also said that a terrace on the south side of the gymnasium is being considered; however, considerations of design, safety, and security may preclude this feature, and an alternative may be to provide a green roof in this area. Mr. Becker asked for more information about sustainability and building performance. Mr. Scarbro responded that the design team has completed a glazing and glare study, which indicates the need for additional shade structures for the gymnasium to reduce glare. He added that solar panels are being considered for the roof; Mr. Becker recommended a careful layout for the solar panels to ensure that they appear as an intentional component of the design, not an afterthought. Mr. Scarbro said the proposed materials include mass timber on a concrete base for the structural elements, along with stone, brick, fiber-cement panels, metal panels, and curtainwall.
Mr. Cook joined in commending the clear and thorough presentation. He raised a concern that the configuration of the two roof planes may result in issues of drainage or leaks into the building. Mr. Scarbro acknowledged the challenges with drainage for the smaller roof and said that alternatives are being explored to address this concern. Mr. Cook also asked about the size of the main hallway alongside the gymnasium, commenting that this hallway should be sized to accommodate several groups of visitors simultaneously; otherwise, it could be a pinch point within the building and cause a safety concern. Mr. Scarbro said the size of the hallway is intended to provide sufficient space for visitors, but he offered to look at this issue again.
Vice Chair Edwards suggested a consensus to approve the concept submission for a new Fort Davis Recreation Center with the comments provided. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission adopted this action.
2. CFA 16/JAN/25-3, Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, 3200 6th Street, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposed alterations to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS). The site is immediately west of the new Congress Heights Recreation Center. The existing school was built in 1971, with a three-story classroom bar to the south, a combined gymnasium and cafeteria volume to the north, and a low entrance volume between them; a renovation in 2015 provided a new entry vestibule and canopy. A parking lot and playground are on the east side of the building. He summarized the project goals of modernizing the school to meet current educational specifications, maximizing the outdoor space, ensuring safety and security, enhancing circulation, achieving sustainability goals, and improving the community.
Mr. Luebke said the proposal is to demolish the existing gymnasium and entrance volumes, replacing them with a new three-story addition at the corner of 6th Street and Alabama Avenue that would create a civic presence for the school. The addition would contain a gymnasium, library, lobby, welcome center, and administrative space; its height would be lower than the classroom wing. The program for the site design includes enclosed bioretention areas, age-separated playgrounds, and outdoor classroom space. He said the issues include compositional and material choices for the addition, the disposition of the site elements, and the connection to the recreation center on the east. He introduced Hiroshi Jacobs of Studios Architecture to present the design.
Mr. Jacobs presented the context, indicating the nearby intersection of Alabama Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue; the site’s frontages include Alabama Avenue to the north, 6th Street to the west, and Savannah Street to the south. He described the area to the south as a residential neighborhood, and the areas to the north and west as mixed-use neighborhoods; the buildings are of varied styles and eras, with a range of materials that is primarily red brick. He indicated the public alley providing vehicular access from Alabama Avenue to the school’s parking area; access to the recreation center is through the eastern edge of the school’s property, which would not change. The school’s main entrance is on the west, along 6th Street; he noted the site’s slope of approximately seven feet downward from north to south, with a retaining wall on the south to allow for a level play space.
Mr. Jacobs said the existing school is not designated as having historic significance, but the proposal would retain much of the building. He presented photographs of the existing classroom wing, which has buff-color brick facades with prominent piers providing a vertical rhythm along the east and west facades. He indicated the additional vertical volume of an elevator shaft that was recently added along the east facade. He noted that the relatively large parking lot directly abuts the east side of the school.
Mr. Jacobs said the school serves pre-K through fifth-grade students; in accordance with current DCPS standards, the proposed improvements include providing separate spaces for the gymnasium and cafeteria, as well as a dedicated library space. The classroom bar’s interior would be completely modernized and the windows would be replaced; its brick exterior would remain, with refurbishing where needed. The proposed site improvements include renovation of the play spaces, with the goal of maximizing the opportunities for educational and programmed outdoor space within the tight site. Safety and security are important design considerations, as well as the routine circulation of students, staff, and the public. The project is also designed to meet the D.C. Government’s stringent sustainability goals. An additional design goal is to signal a change and improvement to the adjacent community.
Mr. Jacobs presented the proposed addition on the north that would replace the existing gymnasium and lobby. The main entrance, at approximately the current location, would provide access to the new gymnasium and welcome center; the library would be on the second floor. The first floor of the existing classroom wing would be extended slightly eastward to accommodate the cafeteria and kitchen. The vehicular access from Alabama Avenue would continue to serve both the school and the recreation center; the amount of parking would be reduced as much as possible while still meeting the minimum required by zoning regulations.
Mr. Jacobs described the architectural concept for the proposed addition, which would have a sculpted massing to provide visual interest. The addition’s height would be emphasized at the corner of Alabama Avenue and 6th Street to provide a sense of civic presence as well as importance within the school’s composition, comparable to the height of the three-story classroom wing, which has a much larger footprint than the addition. Its tall form would be created by providing a generous height for the library and by a screen wall for the rooftop mechanical equipment. He said the massing’s inflections are intended to break down the addition’s volume and create a sense of dynamism to contrast with the simple massing of the classroom wing. The first-floor inflection would draw people from the northwest corner of the site to the main entrance on 6th Street; vertical articulation above the entrance would provide additional emphasis as well as a transitional feature between the classroom wing and the addition. He noted that the entrance lobby would be a transparent volume allowing views between 6th Street on the west and the landscape on the east.
Mr. Jacobs said the addition’s material and color are intended to create a very bold architectural expression; the unified character of this expression is intended to give the addition as much importance as the larger classroom wing, instead of treating the addition as numerous smaller gestures. The classroom wing’s rhythm of vertical piers would be reinterpreted as a feature of the addition but with a contrasting texture. He described the proposed exterior color as an earthy red, which suggests a connection to nature, relates to the red brick in the neighborhood, and echoes the school colors of black and red featured in its logo. He said the addition’s material would not resemble brick but would have a modern character to avoid competing with the strong brick treatment of the classroom wing. The proposed materials are glass-fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) at the base, which would provide a sense of depth, and metal above with a similar or complementary red color.
Mr. Jacobs presented perspective views of the proposal, describing the interplay between the proposed earthy red and the classroom wing’s buff brick. He emphasized that the base would have a slightly different tonality and sheen to create a sense of strength and permanence, while the upper part of the addition would be more glossy and reflective to relate to the sky. The intent is to use texture to create different levels of architectural interest and composition for the relatively simple volume of the addition. He indicated the largely opaque gymnasium volume, with a north-facing window to provide some daylight; the interplay of textures would be especially apparent on the large wall surfaces of the north and east facades, as well as the more horizontally oriented south facade where the addition projects east of the classroom wing as seen from the play areas and recreation center. At the new cafeteria, the red panels would continue along the first floor of the classroom wing’s east facade. He said the replacement of windows in the classroom wing provides the opportunity for a differentiated texture and articulation within the buff brick exterior; he presented a diagrammatic elevation of the proposed window configuration compared to the existing condition. He noted that the new classroom configuration would require some areas of opaque facades, which will contribute toward achieving the sustainability goals.
Mr. Jacobs concluded by presenting the interior plans; he noted that the second-floor library would include an area that overlooks the double-height space of the first-floor gymnasium. He introduced landscape architect Bel St. John Day of Bradley Site Design to present the site design.
Ms. St. John Day described the landscape and context conditions along the frontages of the site, located at a transition between the residential neighborhood and mixed-use development. Alabama Avenue to the north is a busy corridor for cars and pedestrians; she said the existing fenced lawn at this frontage does not provide a hospitable welcome for the students or the community. The 6th Street frontage on the west, with the school’s main entrance, has a sloping grade that must be addressed in designing the new entrance area and the west side of the addition. She indicated the numerous canopy trees along 6th Street, which would be preserved and celebrated; the decision to retain the existing classroom wing helps to avoid impacts on the critical root zones near the building. Additional existing trees are to the south along Savannah Street, with a critical root zone adjacent to the existing retaining wall. At the site’s southeast corner, the grade change between the play space and the public sidewalk is nine feet, which presents challenges for preserving the trees while improving the connectivity of the site design.
Ms. St. John Day presented the proposed landscape design and summarized the design goals: define the primary entrance along 6th Street; improve the secondary entrance on the east, facing the recreation center, to create a gracious area for the students and neighbors; reduce the existing extent of pavement on the east and provide additional tree canopy; and provide programmatic site spaces, including an outdoor classroom and separate play areas for two age ranges. She said that most students walk to the school, which is centrally located within the school district boundaries; students reach 6th Street from the south as well as from Alabama Avenue on the north, and the proposed design at the main entrance would provide convenient access from both directions. She added that the circulation route between the school and the recreation center is also important, and the design is intended to create a clear connection.
Ms. St. John Day presented the proposed concept plan for the site, explaining how each of the design issues would be addressed. The asymmetric configuration of curving approaches to the primary entrance would address the topography and recognize the distinction between the existing building and the addition; the design includes a combination of ramps and arced steps that would reach out toward Alabama Avenue. The proposed entrance plaza is generously sized; she observed that the existing entrance area’s informal seating and foot traffic within fenced lawn areas shows the desire for more gathering space. Along Alabama Avenue, the expanded sidewalk frontage would be unfenced to provide a more welcoming frontage, with potential opportunities for seating that could be used by students and families or in conjunction with the Metro bus stop along this block. At the northeast, the edge of the alley leading from Alabama Avenue into the site would be designed with the character of a streetscape, with an expanded sidewalk and a planting edge, to make this area more friendly for arriving students and for people using the recreation center and play areas. Directly east of the new lobby, a landscaped area would be visible from the school’s primary entrance on 6th Street, providing a green backdrop for the lobby. The outdoor classroom area would be adjacent and would share this landscape setting, creating an inviting learning environment and contributing to the goal of environmental literacy as part of the DCPS curriculum. She indicated the condensed configuration of parking and service areas within a buffer of landscape and bioretention plantings, as well as an improved walkway across the alley to connect the school and the recreation center. Farther south along the east side of the school, the design includes two play areas for different age groups, within a landscape setting that would provide a tree canopy. Students would be able to see the stormwater management zone between the two play areas, further contributing to the goal of fostering environmental literacy.
Ms. St. John Day concluded with images of precedents and inspirations for the landscape design. She indicated the use of arcs within the landscape to address topographic changes, to provide integrated seating and lush planting, and to create gracious, fluid spaces. Other images show the intended use of native plants and the design of stormwater management areas.
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker described the concept as very elegant; he commended the design team for developing a solution that gives the school a strong identity and sense of clarity. Noting the project goal of sustainability, he asked what metrics or certifications are being considered, suggesting perhaps going beyond the D.C. Government goal of net-zero energy consumption to address issues such as indoor air quality. Mr. Jacobs responded that the project is being designed to achieve an environmental certification of LEED Gold and an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) calculation of twenty. Mr. Becker noted that the most recent version of LEED standards, LEED v5, has a greater emphasis on carbon impact than LEED v4, and he recommended using the newer version. Mr. Jacobs added that the design emphasizes on-site renewable resources to the extent feasible, although the site is tightly constrained and subject to competing programmatic needs; the intent is to maximize the extent of bioretention areas, which will allow for minimizing the areas of green roof and therefore maximizing the extent of rooftop solar panels.
Mr. Becker asked if the classrooms for the youngest students would have direct access to outdoor space, which is considered very advantageous, or whether security concerns prevent this connection. Ms. St. John Day responded that the classroom wing would have convenient access to the play areas, but the classrooms for the younger students would not have direct outdoor access. Mr. Becker observed that the existing school’s exterior has a large portrait of Martin Luther King, Jr., the school’s namesake, above the main entrance; he asked if the project includes a program to honor Dr. King, perhaps as part of the building design or in an interior display. Mr. Jacobs responded that this project, like all DCPS facilities, will have a significant budget for artwork; the design will identify approximately seven to ten locations for art, and the artists will be asked to consider Dr. King’s legacy in developing their proposals for artwork. He said that other school projects have included murals or portraits, often on the interior, that reference a school’s historic architect or namesake; the details for this school’s artwork have not yet been developed.
Noting the project’s sustainability goals, Mr. Becker asked if any of the elements proposed for demolition could be reused in the proposed construction, such as the existing floor and roof slabs or columns. Mr. Jacobs indicated the existing mechanical system louvers located below many of the windows; the project would entirely replace the aging mechanical system, eliminating the need for these louvers, and the openings would be filled in. The intent is to use brick salvaged from the existing gymnasium that is proposed for demolition as the material for this infill and for any other facade patching that is needed. Mr. Becker expressed support for this solution, and he reiterated his support for the project.
Ms. Delplace supported Mr. Becker’s comments and said the design is very thoughtful, particularly the site planning and the introduction of extensive green space within the site’s tight dimensions and difficult constraints. She commended the inclusion of a secondary entrance on the east as part of the improved design and green setting for the alley. She summarized that the design is well conceived.
Mr. Moore joined in expressing appreciation for the design and the resolution of the many challenges in designing an addition. He asked for clarification of the intended fenestration pattern; aside from the elimination of the louver openings, he supported the intended infill of some window openings for functional needs, but he observed that the pattern of infill shown in the perspective renderings does not seem to align with the floorplans. Mr. Jacobs confirmed that further coordination is needed; the location of rooms and the needed areas of facade opacity are still being finalized on the floorplans, and at this stage the perspective views are more conceptual to illustrate the general intent for the infill. He clarified the intent to develop some sort of consistent pattern for the infill, which will require continued study of the interior layout. Mr. Moore acknowledged the need for ongoing development of the design, and he reiterated his support for the concept proposal.
Mr. Cook complimented the design as very strong, and he cited the addition’s exterior aesthetic of planes slipping past one another, which he described as very successful. For the east facade, he questioned how the first-floor cafeteria addition would meet the existing elevator tower, observing that these facades would be nearly but not exactly co-planar. He suggested studying this relationship carefully as the design is developed, especially because the materials of these two walls would be very dissimilar; he said that having them misalign by a small amount, such as nine inches, would look odd.
Mr. Lenihan supported the comments provided and said the design appears to be carefully considered. Noting the presented intention to use different materials for the addition’s base and upper floors, he recommended careful study of these two materials to understand how they would appear when used at a large scale. He joined in complimenting the presented design.
Secretary Luebke noted the consensus to strongly support the proposal, with the comments focusing on relatively minor issues. He said the Commission, in approving the concept, may choose to delegate the review of the final design to the staff. Vice Chair Edwards said the apparent consensus of the Commission is to support this delegation. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the concept submission with the comments provided, and delegated the review of the final design to the staff. Mr. Jacobs expressed appreciation for the staff’s assistance with developing the concept in recent months.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA
Secretary