The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:01 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Billie Tsien, Chair
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Peter Cook
Hon. Lisa Delplace
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Staff present:
Thomas E. Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 16 May meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the May meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the minutes. Mr. Luebke said the document will be available to the public on the Commission’s website as the official record of the meeting.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 18 July, 19 September, and 17 October 2024. He noted that no Commission meeting is scheduled in August. The proposed meeting schedule for 2025 will be presented in July for the Commission’s review and approval.
C. Reappointment of Ashley Robbins Wilson, FAIA, to the Old Georgetown Board. Secretary Luebke said the next item is the reappointment of Ashley Robbins Wilson to the Old Georgetown Board for a second three-year term, from September 2024 through July 2027. He noted that Ms. Wilson was initially appointed to the Board in 2021. He summarized Ms. Wilson’s thirty years of experience as an architect with a focus on historic preservation. She served as the Graham Gund Architect for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, overseeing the conservation and preservation of buildings and landscapes for the National Trust’s properties. She was a professor in the historic preservation program at Clemson University, and she worked in the office of the architect for the University of Virginia; her experience in private practice includes projects on the National Mall and for Georgetown’s Tudor Place and Dumbarton Oaks. She has also chaired the historic resources committee for the American Institute of Architects, which elected her to its College of Fellows. She holds degrees in architecture from the University of Virginia and the University of Notre Dame, and she lectures frequently on preservation topics.
Chair Tsien called for a vote on the nomination, and the Commission approved Ms. Wilson’s reappointment. Mr. Luebke said that Ms. Wilson has been a strong member of the Old Georgetown Board for the past three years, and the staff looks forward to working with her for the next three years.
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 the appendix includes thirteen projects, and there is also one case that was previously delegated to the staff. He noted that the only change to the draft consent calendar is to remove one case at the request of the applicant, for consideration in a future month. The Commission approved the revised Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix has fourteen projects. One case listed on the draft appendix (case number SL 24-12) has been removed and is being held open for future consideration. The recommendation for one project has been revised to be favorable based on design revisions (SL 24-132). Other revisions are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. 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. The Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Fox reported that only minor wording changes have been made to the draft appendix, which includes 39 projects. The Commission approved the revised Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
Secretary Luebke noted that the Shipstead-Luce Act and Old Georgetown Act are federal laws that require the D.C. Government to refer private-sector projects in designated geographic areas to the Commission. The Shipstead-Luce Act specifies a short timeframe that allows the staff only two weeks to evaluate the submissions. The Old Georgetown Act specifies a longer timeframe and authorizes the Commission to appoint a separate board to evaluate these projects (see agenda item I.C for the newest appointment); the in-depth review by the Old Georgetown Board at its monthly meetings typically results in a more fully resolved appendix for the Commission’s adoption.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider item II.E.1. Secretary Luebke said that the Commission had identified this submission as one that could be approved without a presentation.
E. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 20/JUN/24-4, Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School, 659 G Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept. Secretary Luebke said the proposed addition for classrooms is derived from and compatible with the late-Modernist design vocabulary of the existing school. Mr. Becker observed that the addition would block two of the three windows in some existing classrooms, and he requested exploration of narrowing the proposed connection to reduce the addition’s impact to a single window for these classrooms.
Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the concept design with this comment.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.
B. National Capital Planning Commission
CFA 20/JUN/24-1, Kennedy Center-Foggy Bottom Area Study. Potomac and Rock Creek Parkway corridor from Constitution Avenue to K Street, NW. Information presentation. Secretary Luebke introduced the information presentation on a joint planning initiative of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the D.C. Office of Planning (DC-OP). The initiative is a study of the urban challenges resulting from the highways around the Kennedy Center, with the goal of developing recommendations for reconnecting the urban fabric in this area. The initiative has benefited from an advisory panel organized by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) that met last year.
Mr. Luebke said the initiative considers the area in three segments to the north, south, and east of the Kennedy Center, establishing a new cultural district and providing a reimagined vision for the area’s highways, local streets, and urban development. The design principles include promoting pedestrian use and minimizing the intrusion of highways; adding usable park space; creating a new arrival experience for the Kennedy Center and integrating it into the city fabric as a living memorial; repairing segments of the city grid; identifying areas for private development; providing continuous vehicular movement within the highway system; and generally simplifying the area’s traffic movements. He asked Matthew Flis, senior urban designer in NCPC’s Urban Design and Plan Review Division, to give the presentation.
Mr. Flis said the study of the Foggy Bottom area has been undertaken by NCPC in collaboration with many partners, including the Commission of Fine Arts staff. He indicated the study area, which extends from the Lincoln Memorial on the south to the eastern edge of Georgetown on the north. Much of this area is occupied by highways, resulting in a barrier between the neighborhood and the waterfront as well as between the Kennedy Center and the National Mall. He presented photographs of the area to illustrate its character, which he described as hostile to pedestrians despite the proximity to many national memorials and public spaces.
Mr. Flis noted that this month marks 100 years since NCPC’s establishment, a time for reflection on the agency’s history and legacy. NCPC had a role in acquiring the land for the Kennedy Center as well as in planning for the highway system. NCPC is now trying to undo the damage from the planning of the past century, in order to create a setting for the Kennedy Center that is worthy of a presidential memorial. He noted the plans for this area in recent decades, including NCPC’s Extending the Legacy in the 1990s and the Monumental Core Framework Plan completed in 2009, which was a cooperative effort between NCPC and the Commission of Fine Arts. He said the Framework Plan proposed ways to transform areas adjacent to the National Mall by creating sustainable and vibrant settings for new commemorative and cultural facilities; it included ideas about how to extend the commemorative landscape from the Mall to the Kennedy Center and along E Street from President's Park to the Kennedy Center.
Mr. Flis said the work being presented today builds on the ideas of the Framework Plan and shares the same goals: improving connectivity, expanding open space, and enhancing the Kennedy Center’s setting. In the past year, NCPC has continued to explore how to untangle the highways in this area. He acknowledged the initial design assistance from the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, followed by the work of a consultant team led by Perkins Eastman that resulted in an urban design study titled Repairing and Reconnecting. NCPC then partnered with the DC-OP and ULI to establish a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP), which has resulted in an action plan that identifies recommendations for next steps. The TAP included expert professionals from a variety of fields including planning, design, and development. Many other stakeholders participated in the process, including community members as well as representatives of the Kennedy Center, the National Park Service, and the Commission of Fine Arts.
Mr. Flis said the TAP worked for two days to consider the opportunities and challenges for this area resulting in several significant conclusions. First is that the large scope of the infrastructure modifications in this area will require the federal government’s leadership. Second is that the justification for implementing the changes must draw on the strong assets of the area that are nationally and internationally recognized, which include the presence of the Kennedy Center and the proximity to the Mall. Third is to develop the area’s identity as a “cultural commons” focused on the arts and culture, creating an experience that does not exist on the Mall. He cited the analogy of New York’s Tavern on the Green, with an integration of restaurants and other active uses. He said this cultural commons would complement the Mall and could provide sites for future memorials and museums in an expanded network of open space. Fourth, the TAP emphasized that the cultural commons could physically and programmatically connect the Kennedy Center with its surroundings.
Mr. Flis presented several plan and section drawings that illustrate the urban design concept. The existing highway area to the east of the Kennedy Center would be decked over to create usable at-grade open space; he noted that the existing highway is at a depressed grade, which makes the decking feasible. The result would be a connected open space system between the Mall and the Kennedy Center, as well as a new arrival experience for the Kennedy Center when approached along E Street from President’s Park. To the north, the connections between Virginia Avenue and the I-66 highway would be consolidated to free up some additional development space; the highway connection along the center of Virginia Avenue would pass below Juarez Circle at the intersection with New Hampshire Avenue. To the northwest, an enhanced intersection is illustrated where Virginia Avenue terminates at the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. The new development areas would become available by removing some of the existing ramps that connect to K Street, I-66, and the parkway. East of the Kennedy Center, the new park space above the depressed highway ramps would include pedestrian and bicyclist connections between the Foggy Bottom neighborhood to the east and the waterfront to the west, with E Street developed as a tree-lined connection to the White House area. To the south, a pedestrian connection would be provided between the Kennedy Center and the Lincoln Memorial within a park that would be above the I-66 highway ramps connecting to the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge. He indicated the more formal terminus that would be provided for Constitution Avenue; the existing Belvedere on this axis would be retained along the parkway, projecting into the Potomac River. He emphasized the intent of the design to create a better gateway to the city and the Mall.
Mr. Flis said that NCPC asked the TAP and the stakeholders to think carefully about sustainability and environmental issues. The plan broadly provides a range of benefits that include improved stormwater management, reduced paving, the potential for renewable energy such as solar power, and additional trees and plantings that would provide a more comfortable environment for residents and visitors. He contrasted this vision with the existing conditions of extensive paving and disjointed open space.
Mr. Flis presented the recommendations concerning implementation, with an emphasis on an entity that could champion the project and uphold the vision. A high-level advisory board would bring together the stakeholders and help in advancing the initiative; he presented a list of the officials or organizations that could be members of this advisory board, which NCPC is continuing to consider and develop. He cited the organizational analogy of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, which was created to guide riverfront development in Washington over the past two decades. He summarized the need for an individual or organization to help guide this long-term effort and keep its vision.
Mr. Flis said the past year’s planning effort has produced exciting results and has shown the need for further work. He said the presented urban design ideas are not the final version, and design alternatives should be explored as the initiative moves forward. The study has shown the potential for great improvement, and he emphasized the need to keep the forward momentum. The next steps include continuing to meet with stakeholders, including D.C. and federal agencies, and to develop a long-term strategy for achieving the major infrastructure changes that are envisioned. He concluded by citing the strong interest in the initiative’s ideas.
Chair Tsien expressed appreciation for the clear presentation, and she invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace said that resolving the area’s traffic will be critical; continued growth in the traffic volumes cannot be sustained at its past pace. She observed that the presentation provides a wonderful vision of the pedestrian and open space improvements that can result from solving the traffic issues. She encouraged NCPC to identify the champion that is sought for implementing the vision.
Mr. Cook offered strong support for the initiative. Observing that a large extent of green space is envisioned, he asked about the intent for its use, such as for active or passive recreation. He also noted the analogy to New York’s Tavern on the Green, which he discouraged as a model to be followed. Mr. Flis responded that the intent for the open space is only conceptual at this stage; based on consultation with the stakeholders, it has the potential to have a more active character that would complement the more formal and reserved character of the National Mall. The new open space is envisioned as more vibrant, with active uses both within the open space and surrounding it. The vision includes mixed-use development that could have housing, restaurants, and other retail uses that would support the cultural and arts uses in close proximity to the Kennedy Center, intended as a change from the current sense of the Kennedy Center being isolated by the highway system. He said the new open space is not intended to be an extension of the Mall’s character or historic framework, but instead would be a more dynamic expansion of the open space system.
Chair Tsien observed that the initiative is very ambitious and is looking far into the future. She summarized the consensus of the Commission that the project is going in a good direction. She recalled her own experience visiting the Kennedy Center in recent weeks, observing that it is not an easy place to get to nor to leave; she said she looks forward to the Kennedy Center becoming a more walkable location.
Secretary Luebke confirmed that no vote is needed for this information presentation, and he said the staff will continue to collaborate with NCPC and DC-OP in trying to move the initiative forward. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
C. Smithsonian Institution
CFA 20/JUN/24-2, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, IndependenceAvenue and 7th Street, SW. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Information presentation. Secretary Luebke introduced an information presentation on the planned revitalization of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The museum complex was designed by architect Gordon Bunshaft [CFA member 1963–72] of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) and opened to the public in 1974. The Hirshhorn is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is within the National Mall Historic District, to which it is a contributing resource. He said the proposed work comprises the third and final phase of a series of improvements to the Hirshhorn complex. The first phase, which was completed in 2023, was the full replacement of the building envelope and cladding; the second phase, currently under construction, includes reconfiguration of the Sculpture Garden to the north of the museum building.
Mr. Luebke summarized the scope of work, which is intended to the museum’s aging infrastructure, an increasing number of visitors, and innovations in contemporary art and its exhibition. Below the building’s plaza, the renovation and expansion of the museum’s lower level includes restoring the previously closed stair that once connected the plaza to the Sculpture Garden via a below-grade passageway, and providing new direct access to the lower level’s interior space. Three design concepts have been developed for the revitalization of the plaza, with the project team’s preferred design introducing organically shaped outdoor gallery rooms of different scales arranged in a loosely radial pattern around the building. The fountain at the center of the plaza would be rebuilt as a multifunctional element that could accommodate performances, and an oculus within the fountain would bring daylight into the renovated lower level. The museum’s plaza-level lobby would be expanded symmetrically by mostly encapsulating the two southern building piers with glazing to accommodate security screening along with a café that has dedicated seating. In addition, existing non-public staff space on the fourth floor would be relocated to the expanded lower level, allowing for proposed new galleries to occupy the entire fourth floor. He said that perhaps the most difficult part of the scope is the creation of a new rooftop enclosure above the fourth floor to contain new mechanical systems that are required to accommodate the expanded program and modernize museum operations. The new rooftop enclosure would be continuous around the building’s drum-shaped massing and would be shifted closer to the central courtyard, which has more constrained sightlines, with a greater setback from the building’s outer facades in order to minimize the enclosure’s visibility from the National Mall and adjacent view corridors. Additional mechanical systems would be located within the lower level. Finally, the scope includes additional work to address structural, energy, and security requirements, including the replacement of glazing and precast panels on the courtyard facade, new insulation, and the remediation of alkali-silica reaction within some of the original concrete walls. He asked Melissa Chiu, director of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, to introduce the presentation.
Ms. Chiu said the proposed work is the most substantial part of the multi-phase renovation campaign and would increase the museum’s public area by twenty percent. The museum is seeking to engage the broadest possible audience, including more of the National Mall’s approximately 36 million annual visitors; the museum’s annual visitation is anticipated to double to approximately two million people following the completion of the renovation project. She said the ongoing transformation of the Sculpture Garden would, both figuratively and literally, widen the museum’s front door and reconnect the museum campus with the Mall. The project goals reflect commitments to expand accessibility, improve visitor comfort, and increase public safety. Public amenities would be expanded, such as by adding more restrooms. Mechanical systems are also in great need of repair and upgrade, and additional vertical circulation would relieve pressure on the building’s single public passenger elevator. Additional goals include mitigating climate change through stormwater management and maximizing the flexible space for contemporary art. She said the Hirshhorn’s program is heavily influenced by its location and physical design; many artworks are created in response to the building’s architecture. She noted that 2024 is the fiftieth anniversary of the museum, and she asked architect Chris Cooper, a design partner at SOM, to present the project on behalf of the SOM-Selldorf Architects joint venture design team.
Mr. Cooper presented photographs of the museum when it first opened in 1974, noting its unique form and careful positioning on the National Mall; he characterized its design as a brilliant and meticulous exercise in proportion. He said the project team is working in the “spirit of preservation” and aims to change the museum’s character-defining features only if necessary and in ways that would preserve their general character. The project team also recognizes that time passes and that requirements change over fifty years, and the project is intended to address deficiencies in the building’s systems, enclosure, programmatic configuration, and ability to display even the existing art collection. He said the comprehensive vision for the museum would work in concert with the ongoing Sculpture Garden project.
Mr. Cooper said the project scope has seven major components, with the first and perhaps most significant being the reconfiguration and expansion of the lower level. The building’s above-ground drum has a fixed amount of space available, and the lower level currently occupies only part of the plaza footprint above; the intent is to enlarge the area and ceiling height of the lower level to dramatically increase the amount of publicly accessible space. The floor slab of the lower level would be lowered by three feet to create additional large gallery and multipurpose spaces. The initial planning is to maintain the existing back-of-house spaces adjacent to the loading dock and to connect the lower level directly to the Sculpture Garden; the lower-level auditorium would be moved and its character changed. Additional restrooms would augment the inadequate single set that exists.
Mr. Cooper said the second component of the project is the creation of a direct link from the Sculpture Garden into the museum. The underground area around the restored plaza stair would be opened to provide an immediate sense of arrival and visual connection to the museum for those moving through the underground passage, which would also be restored. A design alternative for this area would retain the original below-grade walls and provide museum access through doors immediately at the base of the stairs. He said the Sculpture Garden and the museum’s reconfigured lower level would work together as one contiguous space.
Mr. Cooper presented the third component, the expansion of the plaza-level lobby. He said the lobby’s existing original footprint is so constrained that it struggles to provide visitors with any amenity beyond simple entrance. More specifically, the existing lobby cannot adequately accommodate security, universal accessibility, or appropriate thermal control, and the current temporary vestibules are unsightly. He said that if the required additional program needs were inserted within the existing lobby space, the escalators and elevators would be inaccessible. The intended solution is to expand the lobby symmetrically, within a new glass enclosure located entirely underneath the drum above. This expanded lobby would have a single entrance and exit vestibule with all the necessary security screening equipment on the west, and a café on the east. The central area of the lobby would then remain open for visitor orientation, some seating, and circulation to the escalators and elevators. He presented perspective views of the existing and proposed lobby, emphasizing that the presentation is intended to convey an attitude toward the design problem rather than a full architectural concept. He said the new glazed wall would align with the existing lobby’s storefront enclosure, and the coffered building soffit would remain exposed. The existing revolving doors would be removed since they would no longer function as entrances and would confuse visitor wayfinding.
Mr. Cooper said the fourth component of the project scope relates to the courtyard fountain, which he described as the plaza’s “center of gravity.” The fountain is currently nonfunctional due to systemic issues and would require a complete reconstruction. The proposal is to maintain the fountain’s placement, form, profile, materiality, and perimeter while decreasing the depth of the pool to a modest surface of water. This would allow for more effective regulation of the water temperature, extending its seasonal use, and would enable the central platform to be used as a stage for art or performances. A small oculus inserted within the source of the water plume would bring daylight into the gallery spaces below. He presented perspective renderings of the existing and proposed fountain design; while the visible differences between the two would be minimal, the width of the plume would change slightly to incorporate an oculus, and the water would appear different because of the change in depth.
Mr. Cooper asked Beka Sturges of Reed Hilderbrand Landscape Architecture to present the fifth project scope component—the proposed changes to the plaza and its perimeter. Ms. Sturges said the plaza’s existing radial geometry provides a rigid spatial structure that lacks the flexibility required to display existing and future artworks; in addition, the existing barrier-free site entrance at the northwest corner of the plaza is inadequate for modern access requirements. She said the proposed design would embrace flexibility and reengage the site edges to welcome people in from the surrounding streets and sidewalks, creating an organic frame of smaller alcoves around a more flexible central space. She described the edge conditions along Independence Avenue and 7th Street as having limited shade, creating a hot and uninviting environment for visitors. The proposal is to increase the diversity of plantings—creating more shade, providing a more comfortable environment for visitors and wildlife, and shaping more diverse and flexible outdoor gallery spaces. To improve the site’s accessibility, ramps would be inserted on either side of the existing stair along Jefferson Drive, giving a similar entry experience for visitors using either the stairs or ramps; the existing site walls would be preserved.
Mr. Cooper presented the sixth project component, the transformation of the existing fourth floor into a gallery space spanning the full width of the building drum. The storage, conservation, and staff offices on this floor would be relocated to prioritize the creation of public gallery space for new curatorial opportunities.
Mr. Cooper said the seventh and final project component—updating and expanding the building’s mechanical systems—is perhaps the most challenging. To meet contemporary curatorial, energy code, efficiency, and fresh air standards, the space dedicated to mechanical systems would be nearly doubled, from 20,000 square feet to 38,000 square feet. Because fresh air intake must be at least forty feet above the plaza level and one hundred feet away from vehicles, the new air intakes and related HVAC equipment would be located on the roof. If all the equipment were instead located within the lower level below the plaza, the necessary vertical ductwork would require expanding the existing piers, which are the only connection between the lower and upper levels and which are already encumbered with vertical circulation. The proposal is therefore to split the HVAC system between the lower level and the roof, allowing fresh air to serve adjacent equipment at the roof level; given the building’s constraints, this configuration would be the most efficient system that does not require enlarging the four piers.
Mr. Cooper said the new rooftop equipment would be fully enclosed within a continuous circular structure. The enclosure is conceived to be a new figure on the top of the building, stepped back from the outer facade to separate the enclosure from the original proportions of the masonry drum and minimize its visual presence. The design team has developed several early conceptual alternatives for the enclosure’s detailing. He presented perspective renderings of the existing and proposed conditions to illustrate closeup and long views from multiple vantage points, noting that the building is truly an object in the round. He said the material shown for the enclosure is a warm metal that is intended to resonate with the bronze detailing seen in the lobby enclosure and the plaza. However, he acknowledged that the design is still in an early phase, and the exact profile and materiality shown is not resolved. He said that each of the illustrated profiles would respond differently to daylight: one alternative has a small roof overhang, creating a fine line around the top and putting the vertical surface in shadow; another alternative does not have an overhang, lightening the vertical surface. He said these options raise the question of whether the rooftop enclosure would appear more subtle with the vertical surface illuminated or in shadow. A third design would have a different approach, with a prominently sloped soffit that would give the rooftop enclosure the appearance of hovering above, disengaging it from the solid figure of the drum.
Mr. Cooper summarized that the design team intends to develop the many project components in more detail, including the construction of mockups, in working toward a full concept design. Chair Tsien thanked the project team for its thorough presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Mr. Becker said he greatly admires the Hirshhorn and its architectural legacy, and he expressed appreciation for the sensitivity of the general approach for the project. He commended the landscape design and attention to detail, particularly the concept to revitalize the plaza and to bring natural light down to the lower level via an oculus in the fountain. He said he understands the challenges and necessary creativity in designing mechanical systems for existing buildings, but he expressed reservations about the proposal for the mechanical systems; he asked if the illustrated new ductwork in the building piers would be expressed architecturally. Mr. Cooper clarified that the drawing referenced by Mr. Becker is intended to show what would be required if all the mechanical equipment were placed below grade; the existing piers simply do not have enough room to accommodate the required ductwork, and they would therefore have to be expanded. He emphasized that the preferred configuration is to split the mechanical systems between the lower level and the roof, allowing for the piers to retain their existing appearance.
Mr. Becker commented that aside from the iconic building drum, the four sculptural piers are the most beautiful and character-defining elements of the building, and he expressed appreciation for the intention to preserve them; he cited their curving shape, particularly as seen in the original photographs included in the presentation. He asked if fresh air could be pulled in from the west side of the building, which is not exposed to vehicular traffic, to avoid the need for some of the rooftop mechanical systems and associated ductwork. He also questioned the size of the rooftop addition, suggesting that some of the equipment could be sunken into a mezzanine on the fourth floor, or perhaps new geothermal systems could handle some of the HVAC demands of the museum complex. By reducing the needed volume of the rooftop addition, the existing four-foot parapet could potentially serve as the visual screen for the equipment. He also noted that a great deal of emphasis was placed on the proportions and height of the drum as recorded in the meeting minutes of the Commission’s original review of the building.
Mr. Cooper cited the significant dialogue regarding the building’s proportions during Gordon Bunshaft’s original design presentation to the Commission of Fine Arts; the specific proportions discussed were the ratio of width to height, and the drum as it related to the plaza. Mr. Cooper agreed that achieving the appropriate proportions was fundamental to the original design concept, and the design for any rooftop addition must be similarly rigorous. He said the desire to keep the existing drum proportions intact is one of the reasons why the addition is proposed to be visually disengaged from the drum.
Mr. Cooper said the project team has studied locating part of the mechanical systems on the fourth floor and concluded that it would not be the appropriate solution. First, due to the substantial amount of equipment and the significant area occupied by the circulation cores that extend up from the four piers, the remaining area of the fourth floor would be consumed by the equipment. In addition, locating the mechanical systems within the building and near artworks would require additional measures to handle vibrations and potential water leaks; these issues would be better solved outside the building envelope. Beyond the technical challenges, this solution would require removal of the fourth floor’s characteristic ceiling coffers and result in the loss of a potential full floor of gallery space. The project team is therefore encouraging serious consideration of rooftop mechanical systems as illustrated. Mr. Becker expressed appreciation for the previous investigatory work and encouraged further study of minimizing the rooftop addition’s visual impact.
Mr. Becker observed that the proposed lobby expansion would almost fully surround two of the four sculptural piers, and he recommended further study of ways to avoid losing the appreciation and experience of seeing the piers when approaching from multiple sides. Mr. Cooper said the intention is to preserve the appearance of the piers by biasing the glazed enclosure to the courtyard side and keeping the piers exposed toward the building’s outer perimeter. He said the challenge is to provide the necessary space for the lobby with the least amount of impact; the design priority has been to maintain the existing symmetry and keep the lobby footprint within the building drum. Mr. Becker observed that the new main entrance would extend from the west side of the existing lobby, and he suggested consideration of expanding the lobby only to this side. He acknowledged the challenging design problem and emphasized the importance of considering how one perceives the structural piers, which he considers the most important historic feature of the building.
Ms. Delplace expressed support for the proposed interventions and joined in acknowledging the challenges presented by the building. She endorsed the incorporation of an oculus into the rebuilt fountain, as well as the intention to alter the fountain to accommodate art and performances. However, she advised further study of the visual effect of the water that would result from the shallower basin depth; she said the beautiful appearance characteristic of deep water would be lost when the shallower fountain is seen from above. In addition, she acknowledged the challenge of providing universal access within the historic context; she advised further study of the new ramps at the north, particularly how they are inserted into the existing walls, and she recommended that their expression fit into the context of the building and the site.
Mr. Cook said he supports the general approach to the design challenges presented by the proposed alterations and agrees with the comments of the other Commission members, particularly the concerns regarding the lobby expansion. Citing the previous discussion regarding proportion, he questioned how the experience of the courtyard would be changed with the introduction of the rooftop structure biased to the inner ring of the building. He acknowledged the rationale for shifting the mass toward the inner courtyard, but he observed that the height of the new enclosure would be even more pronounced within the courtyard and would affect the visitor experience. He asked if a sunlight study has been conducted. Mr. Cooper said a daylight analysis could be conducted to quantify the potential impact, and he suggested that the new enclosure’s wall above the inner ring could be battered or tapered to minimize its visibility, depending on the specific engineering requirements for the mechanical equipment. He said the impact of the enclosure when viewed from within the courtyard would be easier to mitigate because of the much narrower range of vantage points for this facade.
Mr. Becker asked if a solid roof would fully enclose the mechanical equipment. Mr. Cooper responded that the intent is to enclose the equipment, which is determining the height of the rooftop structure. He said fully enclosing the equipment would help with its maintenance and long-term viability; he also noted that Washington is often seen from above, and the appearance of the roofscape is therefore a consideration. Mr. Becker noted that mechanical equipment for this use is often less than six feet tall, and perhaps an ornamental grille could be used while limiting the enclosure’s height to only six or seven feet, which he said would make a big difference in its visibility. Mr. Cooper responded that using a grille instead of a complete enclosure could result in reducing the height, but the addition would probably still be taller than six or seven feet, and any potential reduction in visual impact would have to be weighed against maintenance considerations for the equipment.
Chair Tsien commented that this is one of the hardest architectural problems she can imagine; she summarized the consensus that the potential alterations are exceptionally thoughtful and careful, as well as being attentive to the legacy of Gordon Bunshaft. She said the Commission members have raised interesting questions, particularly about the piers, but she also acknowledged the pressing needs of the museum. She thanked the project team for the information presentation, and she expressed confidence that they are looking at a wide range of design possibilities with great care. She said the Commission looks forward to reviewing the next iteration of the project. Secretary Luebke added that the staff will continue to participate in consultation meetings. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
D. U.S. Department of the Navy
CFA 20/JUN/24-3, Washington Navy Yard, M and 11th Streets, SE. Revisions to master plan, southeast corner parcels. Final. (Previous: CFA 16/NOV/23-2) Secretary Luebke introduced the proposed revisions to the Washington Navy Yard (WNY) master plan to address the WNY’s southeast parcels. The project is part of a complex swap of properties: six acres on the west side of the Navy Yard, which have been managed by GSA as part of the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC) with longstanding planning and development controls, have been exchanged for fifteen acres of land along the Anacostia waterfront at the WNY’s southeast corner; this area is adjacent to the 11th Street Bridge Park, which is now going into construction. The intent is to develop the southeast parcels as a 1.7-million-square-foot mixed-use enclave.
Mr. Luebke summarized the Commission’s comments at an information presentation for this project in November 2023, including concern that the large scale of the proposed buildings may not be appropriate for this waterfront context, and that a supportable proposal on this federal land may be less than the maximum development potential available under local zoning regulations. The Commission had suggested developing an alternative with lower building heights along the riverfront and without the projections of the new buildings into the 75-foot waterfront setback zone. They also requested more information about the design of the setback zone, a segment of the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, in order to maximize its public use while accommodating the necessary 11-foot grade change. The Commission had also recommended developing an alternative for redeveloping the historic Building 166 that would maintain its entire H-shaped footprint and all of its facades.
Mr. Luebke said the new submission provides additional information to address the previous comments. He asked Nicole Tompkins-Flagg, the Navy’s National Environmental Policy Act coordinator and liaison to the Commission, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Tompkins-Flagg said the Navy has provided additional information in the submission to better explain how the master plan developed and to respond to the previous concerns. The presentation will include a discussion of the building heights and massing; the views within and through the development; the character of the riverfront; the public green space areas; historic resources; and the various benefits of the project. She noted that the southeast parcels are part of a larger land exchange that includes part of the SEFC; in recent decades, the Commission has reviewed the development of other parcels at the SEFC in accordance with an agreement between the Commission and the General Services Administration. She emphasized the tremendous benefits that the land exchange could provide for the Navy, the District of Columbia, and the local community.
Ms. Tompkins-Flagg said that in April 2024, the Navy executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the District of Columbia and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC); the MOU outlined the zoning conditions that are represented in the master plan. While the southeast parcels are owned by the federal government and are therefore not subject to local zoning, the MOU was created to address the anticipated private development on federal land, similar to the MOU that was created for the SEFC. She said NCPC unanimously approved the WNY master plan revisions in May 2024. The Navy has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that addresses the development of the southeast parcels as well as the potential development of the Navy Museum on the parcels being exchanged from the SEFC. Parallel to the EIS, the Navy has undertaken historic preservation review in consultation with the D.C. Preservation League and several government agencies, including the Commission of Fine Arts. The historic preservation process concluded in July 2023 with an executed programmatic agreement (PA), which outlined the baseline development program and massing as well as the future process for ongoing consultation, as represented in the master plan. She said the Navy’s initial proposal was for more than two million square feet of development; through the historic preservation and environmental review processes, the proposal was reduced by over 300,000 square feet in response to the feedback received from the consulting parties. She noted several constraints affecting the financial viability of the project: the site lacks basic infrastructure, requiring significant upfront expenses; the development team’s project costs have increased significantly; and market-price rents have decreased. She said any additional reduction in density would affect the feasibility of the project, and maintaining the currently proposed density for the southeast corner parcels is necessary in order to deliver the project benefits; these include providing critical antiterrorism benefits needed by the Navy, as well as broader benefits serving the public good.
Ms. Tompkins-Flagg introduced Sohael Chowfla of Redbrick LMD—the private-sector developer in the land exchange agreement—to present the proposed master plan. Mr. Chowfla noted that the presentation is split into five sections corresponding to the sections of the Commission's comment letter following the information presentation in November 2023.
Mr. Chowfla said the first section focuses on building heights and massing. To address the Commission’s previous comments, he provided information on how the heights were derived, how they fit within the existing waterfront area, and how the 75-foot setback relates to the waterfront and the buildings. He said the Navy, Redbrick, and the design team spent considerable time understanding the context of the site and working with the consulting parties to address the scale of the buildings; as a result of the consultation process, the original proposal was reduced by over 300,000 square feet. The consulting parties then focused on the heights of the buildings facing the Washington Navy Yard Historic District, which is designated as a national historic landmark (NHL); they identified this frontage as a critical area to provide a more gradual setback. In response, the allowable building heights were reduced from 130 feet to 110 feet for the buildings fronting the NHL along Parsons Avenue. He noted that feedback from the consulting parties was incorporated into the PA that was executed in July 2023, which became the baseline plan that was approved by NCPC in May 2024.
Responding to the Commission’s previous request, Mr. Chowfla presented information on the other building heights along the Anacostia riverfront to compare them with the proposal for the WNY’s southeast parcels. He showed a map with the heights of buildings that are completed, under construction, or have approved zoning within a one-mile radius of the site. He noted that the height measurements for these buildings were primarily derived from the right-of-way width of adjacent public streets. The heights range from 90 to 130 feet, with most being in the range of 110 to 130 feet; he said this is consistent with the proposed heights for the WNY’s southeast parcels. He added that the consultation process included consideration of the relationship of the planned development to the broader context of the riverfront, and specifically to the SEFC, which had historically been the western portion of the Washington Navy Yard and was made available for private development beginning in 2003. The SEFC has several new 110-foot-tall buildings adjacent to historic structures, on Parcels D, I, O, and M.
Mr. Chowfla moved to the second section of the presentation, describing the site design for the riverwalk and the waterfront setback zone; the design addresses the site's location within the 100- and 500-year floodplain, as well as the tidal buffer zone. He noted that the design team has coordinated the proposal with the D.C. Department of Energy and Environment to address the expected sea level rise. He indicated the site’s location on a floodplain map; the grade must generally be elevated above the floodplain level, which is fifteen feet above mean sea level, and he described the two main approaches to achieving this. The first is to elevate the entirety of the site to be above the floodplain level, which he said would create a physical disconnect along the waterfront; he presented photographs of fifteen-foot-high separations at the water’s edge at Dock 79 along the Anacostia River and at The Wharf along the Potomac River. The second option, which Redbrick has selected, is a transition upward from the existing waterfront elevation to the base elevation for the building sites, which allows for a more gentle stepping of the site. He said this solution would meet the PA’s design goals by enhancing public access to and enjoyment of the site, improving the connection between the water and the historic naval installation, and recalling something of the historic character of the military industrial waterfront. The existing setback condition is approximately 18 feet wide, while the width of the proposed public setback area would increase to 75 feet. The historic connection to the NHL would also be maintained by using the stepped setback.
Mr. Chowfla responded to the Commission’s previous request for additional information on the upper-level projections along the waterfront. He said the Navy and Redbrick studied this condition and have modified the design in response to the Commission’s concern. The previous massing had shown enclosed upper-level projections extending the entire length of the buildings fronting the water, but these will now be limited to fifty percent of the total building facade along the water frontage. He said the D.C. Office of Planning has indicated its agreement with this revision.
Mr. Chowfla then presented the third section, addressing the Commission comments concerning views within and through the development, along with the character of the riverfront. He said that since November, in cooperation with NCPC, Redbrick has engaged with the 11th Street Bridge Park team to identify opportunities for collaboration and has successfully resolved their concerns about the project. He said the views from the park were examined through scale models and a physical crane that was raised to the elevation of the park’s Capitol Hill overlook; the conclusion is that existing conditions would allow only limited views from the overlook to the U.S. Capitol, and that Redbrick’s development would maintain views to the monumental core from other portions of the Bridge Park. He said the park’s sponsoring organization, Building Bridges Across the River, has acknowledged the ongoing partnership with the Redbrick development team and has submitted letters of support to the Commission and to NCPC for the southeast parcels project. The Navy and Redbrick are continuing to engage with the Bridge Park team and have further identified areas for future design collaboration where the two projects physically meet; he said the collaboration will continue this summer in working together to refine the design of that public space.
Mr. Chowfla noted the Commission’s request for additional views to the Anacostia River from locations within the development and from adjacent parts of the Navy Yard. He presented paired images, indicating the two different massing options that are included in these views: the bottom image is the massing that the Navy initially proposed to the consulting parties during consultations, with 130-foot-high buildings, while the top image is the final massing that has resulted from the historic preservation consultations with a reduction of the building heights along the NHL from 130 feet to 110 feet. He presented several additional views of the site from various vantage points.
Mr. Chowfla then addressed the Commission’s comment on understanding the character of the existing waterfront. He said the waterfront is currently in a state of disrepair; the trail is within a hardscape setting contained by a fence, with a width of fifteen to twenty feet. The piles under the walkway are failing, causing an uneven and dangerous pedestrian/biking experience, and the walkway itself has no nodes of activity and no landscaping. He said the proposed linear park would create new amenities that integrate into and enhance the waterfront zone, and will maintain and enhance public access wherever possible to fulfill the PA’s design goals. The waterfront zone would have areas of landscaping and recreation, as well as spots to sit, dine, and observe along the 75-foot-wide expanse. He said the Redbrick team will be developing the master plan concepts over the next several months and looks forward to returning to the Commission as those designs progress. He described the varied areas that are envisioned within the waterfront setback: a landscaped zone; dedicated areas for walking and cycling; food and beverage patios; pedestrian lookout points; and potential spaces for recreational activities such as kayak rental. He said the potential nodes for future activity include a marina, green spaces, a play space, and a commemorative park.
Mr. Chowfla provided additional information on the amount of green space that would be provided within the project, as previously requested by the Commission. He noted that most of the site is currently within the secured perimeter of the Washington Navy Yard and has been inaccessible to the public for decades; the proposed development would open the site to the public. He said the development would be consistent with the industrial landscape and character of this site and would allow access to quality open spaces, which would benefit the public and would be an important component for the successful development of this neighborhood. Although new plantings would be limited within the NHL, the other areas of the site would have tree-lined streets, public recreation and landscape areas, and curbless streets to create a more unified and comfortable pedestrian experience and to provide a large amount of publicly accessible open space. He said the entirety of the ground plane from the riverwalk to O Street would be available to the public, and the public realm would allow for circulation to and through the site by a variety of modes including car, bike, pedestrian, and water. He presented images to convey an early concept for treatment of the two existing historic piers, which require significant structural repairs and are currently not safe for public use. He said the Navy and Redbrick will continue consultation on the program and design for the piers through the rest of 2024 and into 2025, with the goal of making them accessible to the public and a part of the increased green space system along the waterfront.
Mr. Chowfla presented additional information on the proposed redevelopment of Building 166. He said the Navy and Redbrick worked with the consulting parties during the historic preservation review process to reach consensus on a proposal for this building, which is a contributing resource to the historic district. The northern wing of Building 166 was built in 1918 during World War I, and the southern wing was added in 1940–1941. He said the building’s interior has been heavily altered since then, and little historic fabric remains. He also noted that Building 166 is not structurally sound; it has experienced significant settling over time, and parts of the building are now closed off to staff. Working with the consulting parties, the Navy has provided reports and studies describing the building’s current condition, as well as an analysis of which parts of the building are feasible to retain. He said the Navy’s initial planning assumed full demolition of the building; but in response to the feedback from the historic preservation review process, the project team has developed a new plan that would incorporate portions of the northern facade into a new building. Several alternatives were explored that would retain different parts of the building, but these would have a significant impact on the project’s density. The decision emerging from the consultation process is to incorporate the remaining portion of the 1918 facade on the north into a new building; this decision was formalized with the execution of the PA in July 2023.
Mr. Chowfla concluded with a summary of the benefits of the overall proposal, which include a new Navy Museum, new housing, new retail space and open space, and benefits for historic resources.
Chair Tsien asked for a summary of the public comments, which were distributed to the Commission members. Secretary Luebke reported that eight letters have been submitted for the project, with six in favor and two in opposition. He said the letters of support were from several individuals and organizations including the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Building Bridges Across the River, and the Yes in My Back Yard group. Generally, they cite the benefits of redeveloping this important part of the waterfront—creating 1,700 new multifamily rental units; employing 6,000-plus people in construction; and creating over five acres of open space. The Washington Area Bicyclist Association supports the proposal for its contribution to walking, bicycling, and transit, and for providing an important link in the waterfront trail. The Building Bridges Across the River team notes that the proposal provides an opportunity to deliver community-driven civic space at a faster pace, and the Bridge Park’s northern landing point would be improved by the proposed development.
Mr. Luebke then described the two letters in opposition. The letter from the D.C. Preservation League (DCPL) was submitted by Zachary Burt, DCPL’s Community Outreach and Grants Manager. The comments focus on Building 166, observing that only its northern facade and porches would be preserved, while the distinctive H-shaped floor plan and most of the building would be demolished. The letter says that thoughtful design is certainly possible with Building 166, as shown by numerous comparable examples, and requests that the development team to restudy this proposal to include the retention of a significant part of the historic structure. The letter also raises concerns about the historic preservation review process, noting that the DCPL was only included as consulting party after requesting this status and with the intervention of the D.C. Historic Preservation Office. Finally, the DCPL letter asks the Commission to require a higher standard of design for this project because it involves an NHL.
Mr. Luebke summarized the second letter in opposition, submitted by Carol Aten on behalf of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City; he noted that this lengthy letter raises many of the same concerns that the Commission had raised in November 2023. The letter describes the master plan as “appallingly inappropriate and disrespectful of the NHL district, the river, the city, and the residents on both sides of the river.” The letter further comments that the master plan circumvents federal and local laws, regulations, and policies, and is contrary to current national and local environmental, historic preservation, and affordable housing practices; instead, a project like this in the nation's capital should be a shining example of best practices. The letter groups the objections into four categories: height, historic preservation, treatment of the riverfront, and affordable housing. The proposed building heights are criticized as making a mockery of the 1910 federal Height of Buildings Act, and the Committee of 100 believes the statute has been egregiously misapplied by referencing the width of the entire 11th Street right-of-way, including the highway ramp. The letter comments that the heights of 110 to 130 feet are too tall to be adjacent the Navy Yard NHL district or up to the edge of the river, dwarfing the existing historic buildings and creating a wall when looking at the Navy Yard from across the river. The letter says that all prior developments within the Navy Yard have respected the scale of the historic buildings, but this proposed development does not. The letter criticizes the proposed treatment of Building 166 as inappropriate and questions why the D.C. Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation could have supported the PA. The letter then addresses the treatment of the riverfront and the Anacostia Riverfront Trail, observing that the proposed waterfront will include a fifteen-foot-tall berm to address the looming threat of flooding; the letter also questions the relationship of the proposed development to the existing trail and the water’s edge, citing the large building projections that would be allowed to protrude above the waterfront setback zone. Finally, the Committee of 100 letter criticizes the proposed amount of affordable housing as only eight percent, far below the twenty percent requirement in the D.C. inclusionary zoning regulations. In conclusion, the letter requests that the plan not proceed as proposed, and that the Commission require the Navy to develop an alternative plan that is compliant and that is worthy of the Navy Yard NHL district and the waterfront of the nation's capital.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Lenihan commented that the proposed projections into the waterfront setback have an overbearing appearance, potentially covering fifty percent of the waterfront facades above a forty-foot height. He asked if these projecting volumes would be enclosed; Mr. Chowfla responded that the individual buildings have not yet been designed, and Redbrick’s intent is to have both enclosed and open projections.
Ms. Delplace noted her continuing concern with the terraced landscape area along the riverfront. She commented that the terrace space will not be perceived as a 75-foot setback, instead appearing to be much smaller as one approaches the buildings because the retail uses within the buildings will take over much of the upper levels for use as outdoor cafés and restaurants. She said this issue will be problematic for both long-term sustainability, functionality, and viability. She also expressed a related concern about how flooding of the lower part of the terraced riverfront will affect the public use of the entire waterfront setback zone. She observed that the proposed terracing would have the effect of separating the zone into a more publicly accessible area along the water’s edge, containing the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, and an area that is more inaccessible to the public adjacent to the proposed buildings. She said her concern is that the functioning of these spaces may become unworkable, and she recommended further study of the public space along the waterfront. She acknowledged that the intended reuse of the historic piers is noteworthy, but problems with this proposal still need to be addressed; she suggested looking to examples in Chicago for a better understanding of how to appropriately handle these piers.
Mr. Cook asked about the percentage of affordable housing, an issue that the Commission had previously raised in November 2023. While this development may bring some public benefits, he said it will likely remain inaccessible for those who are not able to live there. He asked why the affordable housing component seems less than what might typically be expected for a development of this size. Mr. Chowfla responded that the Navy worked with NCPC and the D.C. Office of Planning earlier in 2024 to develop the MOU that outlines the review process and land use approval process for this site; the MOU includes an agreement on several factors in the project, including the amount of affordable housing. He said the D.C. Office of Planning intends to request zoning for the project that will include an eight percent affordable housing set-aside for the rental components of the project, along with an eight percent military housing set-aside for disabled veterans for any for-sale components of the project; the military housing would be subsidized. Mr. Cook acknowledged that the total proportion of affordable housing would be sixteen percent, but he said this amount is still substantially less than the normal zoning requirement of twenty percent, and he said he does not think the project is doing enough to address the city’s housing needs.
Ms. Tsien expressed disappointment with the proposal, describing it as a very large development that would be a private gain but a public loss. She reflected that every response provided by the Navy and Redbrick is essentially justifying the investment and not a true response to the Commission’s concerns articulated in its November 2023 review. As an example, she observed that while the development includes a 75-foot setback for public space along the waterfront, the proposed tiers or terraces would in effect provide greater privatization. She also said the public would likely not be welcome to wander between the buildings, resulting in more of the illustrated open space becoming private areas for the residents who live in the enclave.
Mr. Luebke summarized that the presentation has provided some additional information but has not proposed changes to the previously presented master plan in response to the Commission’s guidance; he cited the significant issues that the Commission had raised regarding the historic preservation issues of Building 166, the massing and height of the buildings, and the impact of the development on the character of the NHL and the waterfront. He also clarified that some of the presented concessions for the public’s benefit are actually development requirements, and not concessions offered by the developer; these include the 75-foot-wide waterfront setback zone and the reduction in the projecting volumes to fifty percent of the facade area along this setback zone.
Chair Tsien suggested a consensus that the Commission would not approve the master plan submission because of the extensive concerns that have been raised, instead requesting a follow-up submission for the Commission’s further review. The other Commission members supported this outcome, and Ms. Delplace emphasized the importance of encouraging better design for the city’s public space. Chair Tsien observed that the Commission’s guidance may have some positive impact on the design of the ground plane, although the concerns with the building massings appear to be having little effect on the proposal. Secretary Luebke noted that beyond the master planning stage, the Commission will have the opportunity to review the design of the public space and individual buildings in the future. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
E. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 20/JUN/24-4, Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School, 659 G Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept. The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
2. CFA 20/JUN/24-5, Stoddert Elementary School, 4001 Calvert Street, NW. Construction of a new one-story cafeteria addition. Concept. Secretary Luebke introduced the concept submission for a small addition to Stoddert Elementary School in the Glover Park neighborhood, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools. The addition would contain a cafeteria, kitchen, and restrooms. The location is adjacent to the southwest corner of a classroom wing that was added to the school in 2011; this wing features a single-loaded corridor alongside a two-story glazed facade, and the proposed addition would connect to the west end of this corridor at a 45-degree angle. The site slopes steeply downward in this area, and the proposed addition would extend to the northwest by spanning above part of the staff parking lot a story below. The addition’s primary facade would be at grade, oriented southeast toward the school’s playground area; the other facades, supported on columns, would be above the parking lot. The taller cafeteria space would be to the southeast, and the lower support spaces would be to the northwest; a narrow hyphen with egress stairs would connect the addition to the existing school.
Mr. Luebke asked Chris Jenkins, the project manager with the D.C. Public Schools, to begin the presentation. Mr. Jenkins said this project is part of a two-phase modernization program that will remove the modular classrooms located behind the school. He introduced Salo Levinas of Shinberg Levinas Architects to present the design.
Mr. Levinas provided an overview of the site and context, indicating the Stoddert Recreation Center that abuts the east side of the existing school. Several temporary classroom trailers northwest of the school would be removed for this project, returning the low-lying ground area to surface parking and allowing for construction of the cafeteria above. He presented several photographs of the site, indicating the wooded character that will largely screen views of the cafeteria addition from the nearby streets; the addition would be most visible from the school’s playground to the southeast. He indicated the root zones for the large trees, which have constrained the selection of the cafeteria site; all of the large trees would remain. He described the layout of the school, with a historic brick building to the southeast and the more recent classroom wing extending to the west; these two past construction phases serve to partially frame the playground area, which is an important focus for the school, and the proposed cafeteria would be oriented toward the playground.
Mr. Levinas indicated the connection between the addition and the existing building. A staircase at this location would remain; it is currently heavily used as a connection to the classroom trailers, but it would likely be only rarely used after the trailers are removed. A new elevator with a vestibule would connect the parking lot to the cafeteria and kitchen above; the elevator would be used only for service, and routine access to the cafeteria would be directly from the school’s ground level. He indicated the entry sequence from the existing glazed corridor to the proposed sixteen-foot-high cafeteria space, with the lower-height support spaces behind. The project includes extensive areas of green roof; the rooftop mechanical equipment would be enclosed.
Mr. Levinas presented elevation and section drawings to illustrate the relationship between the recreation center, the historic school building, the two-story classroom wing, and the proposed addition, which would be lower than the existing building complex. The perspective views show the addition’s brick arcade along the southeast facade, with tall panels of ornamental brickwork above that relate to the existing school.
Chair Tsien noted that the project is submitted for concept review. Commission is asked to decide whether the proposed concept should move forward; if satisfactory, the further review could be delegated to the staff. Describing the design as sensitive, she expressed support for using red brick for the new addition; she observed that the cafeteria and the historic original school building, also of red brick, would visually bracket the Modernist-style classroom wing. She commented that the cut-out arches within the brick piers along the cafeteria’s front facade are an interesting idea; she recommended that the spaces within the arcade be large enough for students to stand in or socialize. She said that the textured brickwork on the upper part of the addition is a handsome feature, relating to the existing brick fascia treatments of the school complex. She commended the proposal as a good example among the many projects reviewed by the Commission that involve updating and expanding schools that have existing modern additions. In supporting the design as ambitious and thoughtful, she observed that the detailing will be critical to its success, and she suggested that the Commission have the opportunity to review the project at a later stage.
Mr. Cook said he agrees with these comments. He described his initial impression that the planning and siting was thoughtful, followed by surprise and skepticism with the architectural treatment that resulted; he said he is now convinced to support the architecture. He said the arcade, with its eccentrically shaped cut-out forms, remains a questionable feature, and he asked for further explanation of its design. Mr. Levinas responded that the presented arcade results from extensive study of alternative forms. The openings within the arcade are illustrated as differently shaped within each pier, gradually narrowing as the depth of each pier is reduced along the length of the facade. He said the intent is to create an intricate and playful form that is appropriate for an elementary school, adding more interest than a conventional arcade. He clarified that most of the openings would be large enough for students to walk through. He added that the southern corner of the cafeteria at the end of the arcade would be entirely glazed, with the windows continuing along the southwest facade to provide views of the wooded area; he said the school officials had encouraged providing this view as well as a view toward the playground. He said the intent is for the upper part of the facade to transition from brick on the southeast to steel on the southwest; long-term maintenance has been an important consideration, and the proposed exterior materials of brick, steel, and glass would be very durable. He acknowledged that further detailing of the design will be necessary.
Mr. Cook asked about the spacing between the piers; Mr. Levinas said they are approximately six feet apart, and he emphasized that the arcade would create interesting places for students to linger or gather, instead of being simply a dead space. Mr. Cook asked if the spacing is related to any other architectural features of the existing school, such as the classroom wing’s glazed facade; Mr. Levinas responded that no specific relationship is intended, but the modulation is generally similar. He emphasized that the more important intended relationship is the balance between the brick volumes of the proposed cafeteria and the original school building, which would frame the classroom wing to provide a unified composition toward the playground. He added that the cafeteria addition is also intended to provide an independent facility for after-hours events, with direct exterior access through the connecting vestibule when the rest of the school complex is closed; he said this use has been an important design consideration, and the cafeteria would serve as an elegant venue for the neighborhood.
Mr. Lenihan expressed appreciation for the design, including the playfulness of the arcade that would be created across the front facade. He observed that the 2011 classroom wing already has a tall, covered porch along its front facade; he asked how this space is used, perhaps in relation to the nearby playground. He also asked whether the intent is to provide for circulation between the existing porch and the arcade of the addition, observing that the arcade appears to be closed off where they could converge. Mr. Levinas said the intended relationship is for students to enter the cafeteria from the classroom wing’s long corridor, which would provide queuing space for the approximately 175 students who would be coming to the cafeteria for each lunch shift. The proposed configuration allows for students to exit the cafeteria directly toward the playground. He said the classroom wing’s exterior porch is not a significant gathering area; students generally move directly between the interior and the playground.
Ms. Delplace expressed support for the comments of the other Commission members. She acknowledged that D.C. regulations encourage the inclusion of a green roof, which is an example of each generation’s values being expressed in its architecture—now focused on sustainability and stormwater management. But she asked if a more compelling roof design could be developed instead of the illustrated flat roof, perhaps with a more robust concept of the roof being an educational component that students could see. Mr. Levinas responded that the extensive flat green roof is needed because little of the project’s required bioretention area can be accommodated at ground level; he noted that the project is not allowed to have any impact on the existing trees, resulting in a very carefully configured and tightly constrained site design. He said the flat roof also allows the cafeteria addition to be respectful of the historic original school building: the new and old volumes would have similar red brick with related facades, but the more animated roofline of the historic building would distinguish it as more important than the simpler volume of the cafeteria addition. The primary embellishment of the cafeteria addition would be the decorative brick detailing, which will require exceptionally good craftsmanship, while not creating a complicated form. He summarized that a sloped roof was considered, and he would be willing to include one, but the conclusion has been that it is not the best solution for this project.
Chair Tsien suggested a consensus to approve the concept, with the request to review the project again as the design is developed. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission adopted this action.
F. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 20/JUN/24-6, 2026 Native American One Dollar Coin. Designs for reverse. Revised final. (Previous: CFA 18/APR/24-6) Secretary Luebke introduced the follow-up submission for the reverse of the 2026 issue of the Native American One Dollar Coin, an ongoing series that began in 2009 with a new reverse design each year. The subject for the 2026 coin will be the Oneida Native Americans who aided the Continental Army at Valley Forge during the American Revolution by providing food and supplies. In reviewing the initial submission for this reverse in April 2024, the Commission did not recommend any of the presented designs, instead requesting development of one of the alternatives. The Commission’s suggestions included simplification of the background; a more equal placement of the two figures; and repositioning the ear of corn to be offered to George Washington instead of being held by him. All of the submitted designs feature an Oneida woman bringing ears of corn; some of the designs identify her as Polly Cooper, which the Commission had encouraged if her identity and role could be adequately supported by historical research.
Mr. Luebke noted that the new set of alternatives was 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 Megan Sullivan, senior design specialist in the Mint’s Office of Design Management, to present the new alternatives. Ms. Sullivan said the nine revised designs respond to the past comments of the Commission and the CCAC, and the Mint has consulted further with the stakeholder groups specified in the authorizing legislation and with tribal representatives. Their preferred design is alternative #03 but with the inscriptions adjusted as seen in #03B, which positions the “$1” denomination toward the bottom of the composition and adds the name “Polly Cooper” near the top; she said this preference is equivalent to using alternative #03B but without the starburst pattern in the background. The CCAC had cited the importance of including Polly Cooper’s name, and the desirability of moving the denomination away from the ear of corn to avoid implying that it was being sold for one dollar.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace offered support for the preferred design without the starburst pattern, but she said the proposed placement of the denomination seems to be a random afterthought. She agreed that the denomination’s placement near the ear of corn in alternative #03 also has a strange appearance. She suggested including the “$1” text within the circumferential text, such as in the gap between “America” and “Valley Forge,” so the denomination does not seem to be separated from the rest of the composition.
Mr. Becker asked about the coin’s obverse as a potential location for the denomination. Ms. Sullivan said the obverse features a portrait of Sacagawea with her infant child; the obverse does not include the denomination, and the Mint does not have the authority to revise the obverse design for this continuing series. She confirmed that the reverse therefore needs to include the denomination.
Chair Tsien asked it the Commission members support requesting a further design revision to address the concern with the denomination’s placement, perhaps within the circumferential text as suggested. Ms. Delplace emphasized that the denomination should seem thoughtfully related to the overall design—perhaps between “America” and “Valley Forge” as in alternative #07, or more prominently centered at the bottom of the composition—to give a sense of completeness. She added that the Commission would not need to see the response to this recommendation; the revision could be reviewed by the staff. Chair Tsien asked if the Mint will be able to address this request; Ms. Sullivan responded that the Mint could ask its artists to study different positions for the denomination.
Chair Tsien summarized the advice to recommend two possible locations for the denomination, which she said may require further Commission review to choose between these options; if the Commission is instead able to recommend a single revision, then the further review could be handled by the staff. Secretary Luebke observed that placing the denomination between “America” and “Valley Forge” within the composition of alternative #03 would put it awkwardly adjacent to George Washington’s head; this position is less problematic within the composition of alternative #07. He suggested a slight counterclockwise rotation of the lower text—“Oneida Allies at Valley Forge”—to provide space for the denomination at the bottom of the design. Ms. Delplace supported this suggestion, noting that the specific solution would facilitate delegation to the staff instead of needing another review by the Commission. Mr. Luebke summarized the Commission’s general request for further study of the denomination’s placement and the guidance to study a location along the border, likely at the bottom. Mr. Cook and Mr. Lenihan joined in supporting this recommendation. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission recommended alternative #03B with the starburst background omitted, consistent with the CCAC preference, and with the comments provided on repositioning the denomination, with further review delegated to the staff.
2. CFA 16/JUN/24-7, Congressional Gold Medal honoring the 53 hostages of the Iran Hostage Crisis (1979–1981). Designs for obverse and reverse. Final. Secretary Luebke introduced the design alternatives for a Congressional Gold Medal honoring the Americans who were held hostage in Iran for a 444-day period from late 1979 to early 1981 following an attack on the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The authorizing legislation calls for giving a single gold medal to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, which may display it in the museum, or lend it for display elsewhere; the legislation also authorizes the production and sale of bronze duplicates of the medal. 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 Megan Sullivan, senior design specialist in the Mint’s Office of Design Management, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan summarized the authorizing legislation for the medal and the historical background of the Iran hostage crisis. The hostages included U.S. diplomats, military personnel, and civilians; they showed extraordinary courage as they were subjected to intense physical and psychological torture during their 444 days of captivity. She cited President Reagan’s remarks in welcoming the hostages back to the U.S. in 1981. For the development of the design alternatives, she said the Mint has worked with several liaisons including three former hostages as well as representatives of the State Department.
Ms. Sullivan presented ten alternatives for the medal’s obverse and nine alternatives for the reverse. She said the preference of the CCAC and the liaisons is alternative #O-01A for the obverse, and alternative #O-04A for the reverse. Alternative #O-01A depicts a group of blindfolded people within the large numerals “444” representing the number of days in captivity; the surrounding border of 53 stars represents the number of hostages. She noted the requested change in this design’s inscriptions to use “U.S. Embassy” instead of “American Embassy.” Alternative #O-04A for the reverse—originally developed as an obverse design—features an eagle in flight after shaking loose from the binding of its talons. The requested change to the inscription is to use “January 20, 1981” instead of “January 20th, 1981” in stating the date the hostages were freed, to be consistent with the obverse’s reference to “November 4, 1979” as the date of capture.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook asked about the significance of the tree that is featured in several of the reverse designs. Ms. Tsien observed that the tree and ribbons are a reference to the song Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree from the 1970s which was popularly associated with the Iran hostage crisis.
Ms. Delplace expressed dissatisfaction with alternative #O-01A, commenting that the triangular cutouts within the triple “4” numerals are distracting and cut into the heads of some of the blindfolded people, which could potentially be addressed by adjusting the placement of the people. She also criticized #O-01A as overly busy, although she agreed on the importance of including the number of days of captivity as part of the medal. She suggested consideration of alternative #O-02 and O-02A, which she said have a more compelling design. Mr. Cook observed that alternative #O-01A would become even busier if the “American Embassy” reference is reworded to “United States Embassy.” Ms. Sullivan clarified that the requested revision is specifically for the abbreviated form of “U.S. Embassy,” which would slightly simplify the design.
Ms. Tsien asked about the membership of the CCAC and the precedent for the Commission opposing its advice. Secretary Luebke said the Commission’s review is independent, and the Commission can provide whatever advice it deems appropriate. Ms. Sullivan said the CCAC has eleven members who represent the public and also have numismatic expertise. The membership includes a sculptor and a historian; some of the members are appointed by the leadership of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. She clarified that the CCAC does not include representatives of the Iran hostages for this specific medal, but the Mint has consulted with three former hostages, who have supported the CCAC’s preferences. She confirmed that the Commission is welcome to provide a different recommendation from the CCAC’s, and the Mint can share the Commission’s reasoning and advice with the former hostages.
Ms. Tsien observed that the proposal is for the production of a single medal to be given to the Smithsonian; the medal would be made of gold and would of course not be in general circulation. She asked about the medal’s size; Ms. Sullivan responded that it would have a three-inch diameter, which is relatively large. The Mint would also produce bronze duplicates with both a three-inch and 1.5-inch diameter; she described the three-inch size as the more artistic version.
Ms. Tsien recalled that the Commission has generally given strong consideration to the design preferences of the people being commemorated, or their family members. She acknowledged Ms. Delplace’s concern that alternative #O-01A is very busy, but she said the preference of the ex-hostages is important.
Mr. Cook offered two comments on alternative #O-02, a preference of Ms. Delplace. He observed that the fingers holding the torch are oddly configured, and he had difficulty discerning the full five-fingered hand. Aside from this graphic issue, he asked if the inscription “Iran Hostages” is the appropriate reference, noting the presented description of these former hostages as American heroes. Ms. Sullivan responded that the former hostages reviewed all of the presented designs and did not raise a concern with this phrasing; she offered to ask about this specific question, and she said the design narrative is typically using the term “former hostages.”
Ms. Delplace said that one of her reasons for supporting alternative #O-02 is the iconography of a chain being broken, which echoes the thoughtful speech from President Reagan and the idea that American ideals could not be held hostage. She described this symbolic expression as preferable to the literal depiction in alternative #O-01A of the numerals “444” and blindfolded people. She also supported the inscription “Courage Sacrifice Resilience,” and she described #O-02 as a cleaner, crisper design than #O-01A.
Chair Tsien asked if the Commission’s authority requires the Mint to use the design approved by the Commission; Secretary Luebke clarified that the Commission’s review is advisory. He reiterated that the Commission should provide its best advice on the design, and the Mint will then decide how to proceed with the medal.
Mr. Lenihan said he agreed with Ms. Delplace in supporting the symbolism and inscriptions of alternative #O-02. He said his concern with alternatives #O-01 and #O-01A is the untraditional use of the large numerals “444.” He said the depiction of blindfolded people is very powerful and may be a reason why the former hostages prefer this design; however, placing these people within the numerals is distracting and diminishes the value of the design elements. He said a more traditional composition could be possible that includes “444” and a depiction of hostages, but the presented design for #O-01 and #O-01A is not appealing.
Mr. Becker expressed support for Ms. Delplace’s observation that alternative #O-02 has greater clarity than #O-01A. He said an issue in memorializing any historical event is to ask what the real meaning is, with the goal of portraying the events in a manner that does not idealize them. He noted that the Iran hostage crisis has a complicated history, including extensive research suggesting that the release of the hostages was delayed for political reasons. He said the simple, brief statement of gratitude in alternative #O-02—“A Grateful Nation Remembers”—resonates more strongly.
Mr. Cook said he agrees with the comments provided, which have convinced him that alternative #O-02 is preferable to #O-01A; he cited the graphic clarity and clean messaging of #O-02.
Chair Tsien summarized the consensus of the Commission to support alternative #O-02 for the obverse, leaving the Mint to decide whether to accept this recommendation or the preference of the CCAC and the liaisons. Secretary Luebke suggested considering the reverse design before taking a vote.
Ms. Delplace suggested consideration of alternative #R-01 for the reverse, citing its handsome and relatively clean composition. She said the oak leaves in this design provide a less literal symbol than a ribbon tied around an oak tree, and the design elements pair well with alternative #O-02 for the obverse. Mr. Becker joined in supporting #R-01 for the clarity of its design; Mr. Lenihan agreed that #R-01 would combine well with #O-02, and Mr. Cook supported this recommendation.
Chair Tsien summarized the consensus to support alternative #O-02 for the obverse and #R-01 for the reverse; she described this recommendation as parallel to the different preferences of the CCAC and the liaisons, while not intended to be in opposition. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission adopted this recommendation. Secretary Luebke said the staff will convey these selections along with the reasons that the Commission discussed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:06 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA
Secretary