The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:00 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Peter Cook
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Hon. Justin Garrett Moore
Staff present:
Thomas E. Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Mary Catherine Bogard
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
(Due to the absence of Chair Billie Tsien and Vice Chair Hazel Edwards, Mr. Moore presided at the meeting.)
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 19 September meeting. Secretary Luebkereported that the minutes of the September 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.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcomingCommission meetings, as previously published: 21 November 2024, 16 January 2025, and 20 February 2025. He noted that no Commission meeting is scheduled in December; the Old Georgetown Board will hold a December meeting, previously published for 12 December but revised to be held on 5 December to better accommodate holiday scheduling.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commissionaction. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting. He noted that the appendices include the vast majority of the more than 700 cases submitted annually to the Commission, with recommendations provided by the staff or the Old Georgetown Board.
Appendix I – Government Submissions Consent Calendar: Mr. Hart said that no changes have been made to the draft consent calendar, which includes thirteen projects as well as the reporting of a review previously delegated to the staff. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix has eleven projects; changes to the draft appendix are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. The recommendations for two projects are subject to further coordination with the applicants, and she requested authorization to finalize these recommendations when the outstanding issues are resolved. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Ms. Bogard said the appendix has 25 projects. The only change to the draft appendix is to note the receipt of supplemental materials. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the revised Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider item II.C.2. Secretary Luebke said that the Commission had identified this submission as one that could be approved without a presentation.
C. National Park Service
2. CFA 17/OCT/24-3, National Mall, 1000 Jefferson Drive, SW. Modifications to carousel and site. Concept.
Mr. Moore invited any comments to accompany an approval. Mr. Becker suggested using a natural material for the surface surrounding the carousel, such as heat-treated ash. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the concept design with this comment.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.
B. American Battle Monuments Commission
CFA 17/OCT/24-1, Overseas military cemetery and memorial sites. Various locations. Wayfinding and interpretive signage program. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposed signage program from the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) for all the properties under its purview. He said the program has three main goals: to provide clear visitor wayfinding and ABMC branding without being intrusive; to use durable, high-quality materials commensurate with the honorific standard of materiality at all the cemetery sites; and to ensure that the signs are cost-effective, easy to maintain, and easy to replicate. Signs would be used for either wayfinding or to communicate regulations associated with ensuring visitor safety and encouraging visitors to respect the site. While the number and content for the signs would vary at each property, the colors and materials would be consistent: beige powder-coated aluminum frames, and vitreous enamel-coated metal panels for the signs. He said the signs would be implemented in groups, with the first group including Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, Belleau Wood Monument, Chateau-Thierry Monument, Montsec Cemetery, Netherlands American Cemetery, and St. Mihiel American Cemetery. He asked Mary Kay Lanzillotta of Hartman-Cox Architects, serving as the executive architecture firm for the ABMC, to present the design.
Ms. Lanzillotta said the ABMC is responsible for 31 memorials and 26 cemeteries worldwide, with most of the cemeteries located in Western Europe. This proposal is a unified system that can be deployed at all ABMC sites to ensure a consistent branding; although intended as an agency-wide program, she noted that implementation will depend on available funds. She said the ABMC has hired Haley Sharpe, a firm with expertise in wayfinding, to design a wayfinding manual. The first phase would focus on six locations in France and the Netherlands.
Ms. Lanzillotta presented the sign typologies of identification, orientation, navigation, and regulation. She noted that sometimes a sign would have a combination of these types of information in order to consolidate the information on the fewest feasible number of signs. Some signs would include an inset map to help visitors locate themselves on the site. She said the overall color palette would use beige (RAL 1035) for the aluminum sign frame and blue (PMS 281) for the background of the sign graphics. The signs would be composed of a frame and a removable vitreous enamel signage panel, which allows for the signs to be easily updated. The proposed fonts would be Minion Pro for name identification signage and Myriad Pro for wayfinding; the text would be in English and the language of the host country, and the signs would also incorporate iconography that includes international symbols to ensure the information is easily recognizable. She added that the program would follow the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as internationally recognized accessibility guidelines, to ensure legibility. She described the proposed sign hierarchy, with the tallest being the 7.5-foot entry identification sign and the smallest being a pedestrian regulation sign approximately 30 inches high.
Ms. Lanzillotta said the design team has developed a case study using the Netherlands American Cemetery, which the Commission is familiar with from recent reviews of the new visitor center, restrooms, and parking. She described the placement of twenty signs at the cemetery: at the main entrance, parking lots, main drop-off area, restrooms, and visitor center, as well as signage prohibiting access to restricted areas such as maintenance facilities and the superintendent’s quarters. The signs would be placed in various site conditions including on pavement, pavers, and grass; she indicated that several of the signs would incorporate a horizontal bar at the ground level to connect the legs.
Mr. Moore thanked Ms. Lanzillotta for the thorough presentation and asked the Commission members for questions and comments. Mr. Lenihan expressed appreciation for the opportunity to glimpse one of the many sites around the world. He commented that the horizontal bar connecting the base of the legs would be awkward on a slope, and he encouraged the design team to develop a detail demonstrating what the base would look like to fit a sloped site. Observing that most of the signage would use a blue background, he suggested using this blue instead of the presented white background for the signs with international symbols. Ms. Lanzillotta responded that the white is proposed because it allows the standard symbols to have greater contrast with the background; the concern is that the blue background might not provide a sufficient contrast for visitors with vision impairments. Domitille Arnaud, the ABMC project manager for the signage program, noted that the project team has discussed the background and prefers the white, but she offered to revisit the issue of the background color.
Mr. Cook recommended studying the legibility of the signs for both drivers and pedestrians, and he suggested that the parking icon could also be blue in order to reduce the number of colors in the proposed signs. He added that the inset maps in the proposed signs could incorporate a walking radius to ensure that visitors will understand distances to different parts of the site. Ms. Lanzillotta responded that since the inset maps are relatively small and the goal is to ensure legibility, the design team does not want to add much to them; however, she agreed to study whether a simple graphic could be added to address this concern.
Mr. Moore summarized the comments to better resolve the base and foundation conditions, to consider color changes for the iconography and background, and to consider adding a walking distance radius to the inset maps. Mr. Luebke noted that subsequent submissions would be for individual sites under the purview of the ABMC. Mr. Moore suggested approval of the concept with the comments provided, with review of the specific installations delegated to the staff. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission adopted this action.
1. CFA 17/OCT/24-2, Peace Corps Commemorative Park, Louisiana Avenue at C and First Streets, NW. New commemorative park. Final. (Previous: CFA 18/NOV/21-1)
Secretary Luebke introduced a project submitted by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf of the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation of a final design for the proposed Peace Corps Commemorative Park to be located at Reservation 727, a small triangular park adjoining the northwestern edge of the U.S. Capitol Grounds. In the previous review in November 2021, the Commission commended the primary features of the design: the configuration of the 38-foot-diameter circular granite plaza; the refinement of the three sculptural bench-hands to frame it; the choice of the Peirce polar projection for the design of the world map that would be set within the paving; and other elements. At this review, the Commission gave some specific recommendations: greater abstraction in the sculpting of the bench-hands, with consideration of discouraging skateboard use; refinement of the map’s proportions to avoid distortion; study of the joint patterns of the plaza’s paving to avoid their misinterpretation as lines of latitude and longitude; further refinement of the paving’s textures; and additional information about the proposed inscriptions and details such as surface drainage. He said the design team has returned with a proposed final design responding to these comments, as well as refinements to address other issues such as companion seating and, for blind visitors, cane detection barriers.
Mr. Luebke noted the death earlier this month of architect Roger Lewis, who was a noted architectural educator, designer, and critic in Washington. Mr. Lewis had been a Peace Corps volunteer and was a driving force in bringing the Peace Corps Commemorative Park design to this point; he will be missed, and this design will be part of his legacy. He asked Tammy Stidham, associate regional director for lands and planning with the National Capital Region of the NPS, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Stidham acknowledged how much everyone on the project team misses the presence of Roger Lewis. She said the team has been working since the previous review in 2021 to advance the design, and the presentation will highlight areas that include the proposed selection of stone, the words and typographical design of the inscriptions, accessibility, planting, lighting, and signage. She asked Tony Barclay, acting president of the sponsoring foundation, to introduce the design team.
Mr. Barclay said that Mr. Lewis had been the guiding force and visionary behind this project for many years. He emphasized that the park is not meant to be a traditional memorial or simply a tribute to the Peace Corps federal agency; instead, the park commemorates the ideas that motivated President John F. Kennedy and his brother-in-law, the politician and diplomat Sargent Shriver, to create the Peace Corps as an expression of American ideals and values. Subsequent to the previous review, the design has been considerably refined to capture that spirit in order to provide an inspirational and educational experience that extends to the larger story of Americans as actors for the cause of peace. The project team believes this project will fill an important gap in the landscape of the National Mall, telling an important part of the American story. He introduced sculptor Larry Kirkland and landscape architect Michael Vergason to present the final design.
Mr. Kirkland began by describing the granite proposed for the bench-hands and paving. The bench-hands would be gray “Silver Cloud” granite from Georgia, a hard and dense granite with very low moisture absorption; its color includes a variety of gray tones, from very light to dark. The granite would have a honed finish, and the intent is for the qualities of the stone to be evident. The paving would be “Virginia Mist,” a dark black granite from Virginia that has fine white veins running through it, which is similar in hardness, density, and absorption to Silver Cloud granite. He said the proposed Peirce polar projection for the plaza’s map was recommended by cartography consultants as presenting the most accurate depiction of land mass size without the distortions found in other map projections. The paving’s joint pattern has been randomized to avoid confusion with lines of latitude and longitude. The map would use two different finishing and carving treatments of the Virginia Mist granite to create a strong graphic contrast: ocean areas would be lightly modeled with a high-honed finish to bring out the color of the granite, while the land areas would be articulated with ridges and grooves; this pattern would provide a safe friction coefficient for walking. He said that by using one type of granite instead of inlaying two contrasting colors, the land masses can be shown in much more accurate detail. He noted that Peace Corps volunteers recall the most important part of their service as interaction and communication among individuals; this would be symbolized in the paving pattern through the use of the crossing quarter-inch bands. He illustrated the scale of the two texture patterns and the fine detail they will provide; Mr. Luebke said he has received a sample of the granite to show at the end of the presentation.
Mr. Kirkland presented the proposed inscriptions of four quotations selected by the sponsoring foundation as most reflecting the park’s intended message of service to others in the quest for global peace. He noted the collaboration of stone carver Nicholas Benson, who has developed a V-cut lettering to provide the best contrast of light and shadow; Mr. Benson worked with the same design team on the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in Washington, southwest of the U.S. Capitol Grounds. At the park’s main entry, a quotation from President Kennedy would be inscribed on the outside of a bench-hand; the other three quotations would be on the inside surface of the benches.
Mr. Kirkland described how the park design would accommodate barrier-free access. To meet the design standard for companion seating adjacent to a wheelchair-accessible space, the plaza has been slightly expanded in two locations: at the main entry and at the entry from First Street. The expansion of the paving in these areas would also allow enough circulation space for visitors to walk by a wheelchair. By expanding the paved area only slightly, the sinuous quality of the paving edge has been retained. He said that design standards also call for a four-inch-high cane detection barrier beneath projecting elements higher than 26 inches, for the safety of blind visitors using a cane to navigate through the park. He illustrated two options for the cane detection barrier beneath parts of the bench-hands: a stainless-steel rail, or a curb of Virginia Mist granite that would emerge from the paving and almost shadow the outline of the granite fingers above.
Mr. Kirkland presented the proposed design details to deter skateboard use in the commemorative park. The stone bench-hands would be constructed in five sections; in the four joints between the sections, the proposal is to add a one-inch-thick stainless-steel plate, coplanar on its vertical surfaces with the stone, and protruding one-eighth or three-sixteenths of an inch above the horizontal seating surface to stop a skateboard from rolling the length of the bench. He said the wave pattern of the paving depicting the oceans is also designed so that skateboarders would not have the smooth surface they need to gain enough speed to jump onto the benches.
Mr. Vergason then presented the final design for drainage, planting, lighting, and signage. He said the high point of the plaza would be located at the polar cap. Sheet flow of water from the plaza would slip under the benches or into trench drains located at the perimeter of all the entries; these drains would connect to a pair of bioretention basins flanking the plaza. He said the plantings would focus on trees, which will be important for the comfort of the park and for creating a connection to the larger landscape of the U.S. Capitol Grounds. Five overcup oaks would be planted along the Louisiana Avenue sidewalk to complement an existing red oak in the northeast corner that would be preserved. Honey locust trees would be planted around the benches to provide dappled shade for the plaza; interspersed among the honey locusts would be an elm and three redbud trees. A variety of low shrubs and groundcovers would be planted to provide seasonal interest, to anchor the corners of the park, and to reinforce the definition of the plaza around the benches. Turf grass would be planted in the bioretention basins. He noted that this simple planting plan would accommodate the NPS maintenance regime.
Mr. Vergason said ambient lighting would be provided by four Washington globe light posts around the site’s perimeter. Within the site, three multi-headed pole lights would be placed around the benches to provide accent lighting for the benches and inscriptions, as well as soft lighting for the landscape. Small ground-mounted lights would be installed beneath each of the significant shade trees. A donor recognition sign would be placed at the Louisiana Avenue entrance for a period of ten years; the sign would be brushed stainless steel measuring 24 inches tall and 18 inches wide.
Mr. Barclay thanked the NPS and the design team on behalf of the foundation’s board of directors, reiterating Roger Lewis’s important contributions to the project’s realization. He said the foundation hopes to communicate an important message with this design and to create a visitor experience that will be accessible to all.
Mr. Moore expressed appreciation for the presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker said he supports the design. For the cane detection barrier, he suggested using raised granite instead of a metal rail, achieving the purpose while eliminating the need for a new material; he asked how the presented alignment was chosen. Mr. Kirkland responded that the granite pavers could be raised to the required four-inch height in a simple curving alignment, or in the presented alignment that follows the outline of the hand above. He said the Commission staff had expressed concern that a simple form for the raised granite would give the impression that the bench-hand is resting on a platter; the presented option to follow the alignment of the fingers would be more in keeping with the sculptural quality of the benches. Mr. Luebke clarified that the staff’s concern is with potentially weakening the honorific elements of the design—the map and the sculpted hands—by using the same material for ancillary features such as cane detection barriers or skateboard deterrents; these secondary elements should not be treated honorifically. The staff therefore suggested developing an option using metal for the cane detection barrier, which would be understood as a functional rather than commemorative component.
Mr. Becker said the design for the cane detection barrier still appears to need some resolution; the metal solution looks like it could be damaged or cause a tripping hazard, and he recommended further study. Mr. Kirkland said the design team will consider ways to combine metal and stone, perhaps by raising the stone as a one-inch-high base for a metal rail. He offered to continue coordinating this detail with the Commission staff and the NPS.
Mr. Cook asked about the size of the companion seating at the end of the bench-hands, observing that it appears too small and shallow for anyone to want to sit there for long. Mr. Kirkland said these seating areas would be eighteen by eighteen inches. He acknowledged that the skateboard deterrent appears to be too close to the end of the bench, constraining the companion seating area; moving this metal plate farther from the end would result in a welcoming and comfortable place to sit, as intended. Mr. Cook noted that moving the plate farther inboard would require shifting the adjacent inscription, and he recommended careful study of this configuration to ensure that the companion seating on the benches will be comfortable.
Mr. Moore observed that the paving in some areas has very narrow dimensions and strange geometries, notably in the area between the paving edge and the bench-hands. He recommended further refinement to resolve these geometries, which might include the repositioning of light posts and other details. Noting that the project is submitted as a final design, he said the geometries of these areas should be specific. He added that this comment is similar to Mr. Cook’s comments on the adequacy of the bench surface and paving at the companion seating locations, where adequate space for wheelchair movement should be provided. He joined in the request for further exploration of the design for the cane detection barrier, such as an option with a low granite base and a metal rail, or a rail without a base, and he suggested considering which solution would work best for long-term maintenance. He suggested delegating these remaining issues to the staff for resolution.
Mr. Luebke displayed the submitted granite panel with samples of the carving patterns. He said the proposed pattern can effectively depict details such as islands within a depth of three-eighths of an inch, and this treatment does not appear to present a tripping hazard.
Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the final design subject to the comments provided, and delegated the resolution of the remaining details to the staff.
2. CFA 17/OCT/24-3, National Mall, 1000 Jefferson Drive, SW. Modifications to carousel and site. Concept. The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 17/OCT/24-4, Frederick Douglass Community Center, 1922 Frederick Douglass Court, SE. New building and landscape improvements. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposed replacement of an existing community center building that dates from 1967 and no longer meets community needs. He noted that the community center and associated parkland were transferred from the National Park Service (NPS) to the D.C. Government in 1971 and are managed by the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). The site is conceptually part of the Fort Circle Park system, which was a partially implemented proposal from the McMillan Plan to link the former Civil War fort sites with a greenway to encircle central Washington.
Mr. Luebke said the most substantial component of the proposal is the new building, which has a radial design that recalls the plan of the existing community center. The building would have alternating single- and double-height volumes with several multipurpose rooms, a kitchen, and a fitness center. In the center of the building would be an open gathering space to honor the legacy of Frederick Douglass, who resided nearby. He said the building’s radial form and its configuration of alternating building heights is intended to allow for ample natural light and provide expansive views into the surrounding landscape. He noted that all buildings constructed by the D.C. Government are now required to achieve net-zero energy consumption; the design therefore includes several elements to achieve this goal, including natural ventilation, rooftop solar panels, geothermal wells, green roofs, and rainwater harvesting. The internal structure would be mass timber construction clad in brick and heat-treated modified wood. For the site design, the existing swimming pool would be retained, and other new programmatic elements would be added, including a splash pad, a garden, picnic areas, basketball courts, a multipurpose field, and a baseball diamond. Some of these elements are designed to work with the building’s wedge-shaped radial configuration by extending outward from the building to the landscape.
Mr. Luebke asked project manager Michael Etherton of the D.C. Department of General Services (DGS) to begin the presentation. Mr. Etherton noted that DGS is excited to present this new community center along with several new site amenities for the use and enjoyment of the community, which has been waiting for many years. He introduced John Burke of Studio 27 Architecture to present the concept design.
Mr. Burke said the new community center building would be placed within an existing six-acre park that includes two small buildings, both dating from the 1960s: a 2,000-square-foot pool house and the radially configured community center. The park was also established in the 1960s and has not been significantly modernized since then; it is located up the hill from Suitland Parkway. He presented an aerial view to illustrate the site context and the neighborhood; a townhouse community partially surrounds the park, and the abutting parkland is under NPS jurisdiction. He indicated the boundary line for the transfer of jurisdiction for the community center property; the line overlaps with some neighboring properties, and some components of the community center have been built outside the line, including a splash pad, a trail, and part of the access road. He said the project team is working with the NPS and the D.C. Office of the Attorney General to resolve these boundary concerns.
Mr. Burke said that most of the community center’s visitors walk to the site from the neighborhood. The outdoor pool is a popular attraction; other well-used elements on the site are the walking path, the baseball field, and the playgrounds. The community center is also used as a food bank; the program operating here distributes a significant amount of food annually to the community.
Mr. Burke said that some site elements would be retained, including the pool and several large trees located near the building’s front entrance. The pool would be resurfaced and rehabilitated; the existing pool house would be demolished, and its functions would be relocated inside the new community center building. He said the building would be a gathering place for everyone in the community, and also a place where people can look outward to view the site amenities. The proposed radial shape for the building is a reference to the existing community center building; this configuration provides a central forum to serve as a gathering space. The landscape would extend from the building following the radial geometry, as shown in photographs of the small-scale design model. He noted that the topography around the building is generally flat, and the level of the existing pool has influenced the grade level of the new building. The playing fields and courts would be at a lower elevation, resulting in the proposal for terracing around the building to provide the needed connections.
Mr. Burke said the existing pool house was built as part of a larger city initiative in the 1960s; in conjunction with the proposed demolition, the design team is in communication with the D.C. Historic Preservation Office to determine how to acknowledge its contribution to the community as part of the proposed design. Some options being discussed include interpretive signage or grinding part of the existing building’s blue glazed block to be incorporated into the new pavement.
In describing the building’s form, Mr. Burke said the central gathering space is an organizing feature for the building. Multipurpose spaces and facilities around the central area would support the pool and other outdoor activities; flexibility in the building form would allow for adapting to future changes in the building program. The design team has also explored other building configurations, including a different radial plan that is closer to the existing community center’s form as well as a more traditional rectilinear form that could accommodate the program in a smaller space. The proposed configuration has been selected as best fitting the program and goals set forth by the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation and the desires of the community.
Mr. Burke presented the proposed floorplan and indicated the rooms adjoining the double-height central gathering space: multipurpose spaces, a large kitchen, locker rooms for the pool, bathrooms, and support and maintenance spaces. The multipurpose spaces would also be double height to provide more daylight and ventilation, while the support spaces would be one story. The kitchen would be connected to a multipurpose room where meals and food could be distributed. The plan is configured to provide direct sightlines from the interior outward to the landscape; he noted that safety is a concern at this park, and the views out of the building are an important consideration.
Regarding the net-zero energy requirement, Mr. Burke said the roofs over the taller multipurpose spaces would have solar panels while the lower volumes would have green roofs. The proposal also includes geothermal wells below the playing field, along with bioretention areas to reduce stormwater runoff. The proposed exterior materials include light-colored brick along with a modified wood product that is stabilized to help prevent rotting. The main structural element on the interior would be mass timber, which would be visible from the outside for additional visual interest.
Mr. Burke said that adult exercise is very important in this community, and the proposed site design includes a walking path, a community garden, two outdoor basketball courts, age-appropriate outdoor playgrounds, and a gathering place for outdoor yoga or other types of exercise. The design also proposes a small indoor play space. A new splash pad would replace the existing one, and the site would include some picnic and barbeque areas.
Mr. Moore expressed appreciation for the presentation and asked the Commission members for their questions and comments. Mr. Cook observed that the proposal is not the typical design for a community center, but he is intrigued by it and appreciates the conceptual idea. However, he noted the concern that this type of strong organizing form can dictate the size and configuration of each room, and the result is a plan that consists of some oddly shaped spaces. For example, the room illustrated with a basketball court is trapezoidal, which is not ideal because it would not allow the space to function well. Another issue could be sunlight affecting basketball play, and he suggested exploring other configurations that would reduce the glare on the players.
Mr. Cook asked if the building form and program are appropriate issues for the Commission’s comments; Secretary Luebke said the radial form is a key part of the concept, and the Commission members can comment on it. Mr. Cook clarified that part of the question is whether to raise issues with the fit of the interior program. Mr. Burke responded that the community and DPR have been very supportive of the proposed design. He noted that the space shown in the plan with a basketball court should simply be designated as a multipurpose room; the intent is not to provide a single-use, regulation-size basketball court or half-court but is instead to create flexible spaces that could be programmed to meet the future needs of the community.
Mr. Cook concluded by asking how the roof would be accessed to reach the proposed solar panels and vegetated areas. Mr. Burke said the areas of solar panels would be accessed with hatches, as documented on the roof plan; the vegetated roof areas would be accessed using a movable ladder that would be stored on site.
Mr. Becker asked if the design team is confident of being able to meet the requirement for net-zero energy consumption. Mr. Burke said this continues to be studied as part of the design process; the design team believes the proposed measures will be sufficient, including a geothermal field to support the HVAC operations, along with the solar panel system that is sized to provide enough electricity for the lights and other uses in the building. He noted that the project would include a hook-up for a supplemental generator if one is needed in the future. Mr. Becker suggested careful consideration of how net-zero energy consumption is defined and measured, likely involving a year-round calculation rather than removing the building entirely from any off-site power supply. He recommended developing an energy model that would consider the building’s mass, surface area, and internal volume, in order to better understand the project’s energy needs in relation to achieving the net-zero energy consumption goal.
Mr. Lenihan expressed appreciation for the design, but he cautioned that the efficiency of the plan could be reduced by the proposed configuration because it creates spaces that are difficult to program.
Mr. Moore commended the design, commenting that it creates unique, generous, and well-designed spaces for the community while simultaneously striving to meet the net-zero energy consumption goal. He agreed with the concern about the shape of the rooms resulting from the building configuration, and he said that additional work or evidence is necessary to resolve some of these spaces. He also recommended exploring changes to the landscape. He observed that the site has three existing outdoor basketball courts, but the proposed site plan has only two; he asked about the community reaction to losing one court and to the design of other proposed outdoor spaces, such as the garden. Mr. Burke responded that the design team shared several different park layouts with DPR and the community, and the consensus was that there was more interest in gaining the playing field than in losing a basketball court. He also noted that the community garden is very actively used by neighborhood residents; in response to conversations with the community, the intent is to incorporate additional features around the garden, such as seating and shade. He also emphasized the many family barbecues and picnics that take place at the park, which the site design tries to accommodate in a few areas. Mr. Moore expressed appreciation for the additional information regarding community input for the outdoor spaces, but he still recommended further design study to ensure that necessary elements are incorporated into the landscape design; he cited the loss of an existing pergola, the need for storage space associated with the community garden, and the location of a trash dumpster.
Mr. Luebke summarized that the Commission members are supportive of the design approach but want further development; he suggested that the Commission could give support for the general concept design while requesting additional studies to address some of the issues that have been raised. Mr. Moore noted the consensus to support this response; he said the comments have addressed the building’s form and function, the landscape, and the energy modelling to understand how it might impact the design. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
2. CFA 17/OCT/24-5, Fort Davis Recreation Center, 1400 41st Street. SE. New building and landscape improvements. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept submission for the Fort Davis Recreation Center, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services (DGS) on behalf of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). The site and neighborhood are both named for the Civil War earthwork of Fort Davis, which became part of the National Park Service’s Fort Circle Park system. He said the existing recreation center was previously named Fairfax Village Playground and was designed by Hartman-Cox Architects. When the recreation center opened in 1969, it was published in Architectural Forum as an exemplar of contemporary design; unfortunately, the building has been compromised by decades of unsympathetic alterations, and demolition is now proposed.
Mr. Luebke said the new recreation center building would be sited in approximately the same location as the existing structure, on a steep slope at the southern end of the parcel, with primary access from the north. Built into the hill, the proposed building would be two stories tall on the lower side to the rear and one story on the higher entrance side. A double-height gymnasium volume, with an oval track on an upper-level mezzanine, would face the rear of the site. The upper-level primary facade would front on the field to the north and would contain the lobby, kitchen, and multipurpose room. He said the new building is required to achieve net-zero energy consumption; the use of extensive solar panels and a high-performance building envelope are being studied. He asked Saun Cox, the DGS project manager, to begin the presentation.
Mr. Cox said the primary goals are to design a building that supports the community; to achieve net-zero energy consumption and a LEED Gold environmental rating; to enhance and celebrate the outdoors; to create spaces where people can gather and connect; and to promote holistic wellness. He introduced several members of the design team to present the proposal: Ben Scarbro, Christian Calleri, and Hui Sheng of the architecture firm Perkins Eastman DC, and Holt Jordan of Jordan Honeyman Landscape Architecture.
Mr. Scarbro described the site context in the residential Fort Davis community of Southeast Washington, just southwest of Fort Dupont Park; he indicated the proximity to the Francis A. Gregory Library, and Anne Beers Elementary School. Remnants of historic Fort Davis are located within a nearby wooded area; the project team has been asked to provide for the display of historic photographs of the neighborhood in the building. The major roadway of Alabama Avenue borders the site to the north; 41st Street is located along the east side; an alley runs along the south; and two residential streets dead-end at the site’s west boundary.
Mr. Scarbro indicated the baseball field and tennis court on the northern part of the site, which is generally flat. The existing recreation center building, located near the site’s southeastern corner, is partially embedded in the hillside. Most of the neighborhood’s residents live within a ten-minute walk, and approximately half of the recreation center’s visitors walk to it; many enter the site from the south. He indicated the bus stops and bike-sharing stations on Alabama Avenue, and the street parking on Alabama Avenue and 41st Street; the site currently lacks a parking lot.
Mr. Scarbro said the steep topography at the south had determined the form of the existing building: it is embedded within the hill, and the slope of its roof mimics the slope of the hill. It comprises two volumes: the northern volume includes the entrance lobby, with multipurpose rooms on the second level; the larger volume to the south contains the gymnasium, which is a later addition. He said that the D.C. Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has determined that the original 1960s building has no remaining historic integrity, with many alterations to the interior and exterior. The building does not provide barrier-free access; it lacks an elevator, and visitors must either use stairs or walk outside to reach the gymnasium. Because of this lack of accessibility and other deficiencies, the community would prefer to replace the building. He presented photographs of the small slit windows that admit light to the interior but do not establish a visual connection to either the community or the park.
Mr. Scarbro said the level area of the site at the baseball field will not require much work. The tennis and basketball courts, which are arranged in tiers along the slope, would be repaved. Due to the forty-foot grade change at the south, providing a connection between the recreation center building and the 41st Street sidewalk on the east will be challenging, and access from this side is an important factor in determining where to locate entry points to the site and the new building’s lobby. He noted that the existing walkway does not meet current accessibility standards. He added the design team is working with DPR, DGS, and the neighborhood to determine how to balance the need for access with concerns about safety. Nine gates currently provide access to the fenced site; two gates are blocked, and the community prefers that they remain closed to prevent people from entering the site when it is not open to the public.
Mr. Calleri presented the project’s site strategy and its six primary design principles, which were developed using input from the client and the community. The recreation center should have both a city frontage and a park frontage. Because of the very different conditions on each side, the new building should not be considered as an object in the landscape. The interior program spaces should have both actual and visual connections with the exterior spaces and other program areas so that people inside the building can see where they are going, and also have views of the surrounding landscape. The public-facing areas of the building should be welcoming and conducive for community activities. The building entrance should be clearly visible, with beautiful and inviting access allowing a clear view of the building from the lower area on 41st Street up to the entrance. The extensive landscape should be varied but also relatively simple and easy to maintain. Finally, the building needs to minimize adverse views, particularly views toward the wide alley along the site’s south side.
Mr. Calleri presented a diagram illustrating that the proposed building is envisioned with two very different frontages, which could be considered as an urban front on the south and a garden front on the north; he reiterated the importance of creating a visual and conceptual connection from the north facade up to the baseball field. The side of the building facing 41st Street would have terraced paths leading to a plaza with a garden, a feature that would make the building an important yet welcoming civic structure.
Due to technical difficulties for Mr. Jordan, Mr. Scarbro presented the landscape design. A relatively small amount of work is needed on the north side: resurfacing the tennis courts, adding pickleball courts, and laying new sod on the baseball field’s outfield; a geothermal well would be added beneath the field before new sod is laid. The basketball court would be slightly expanded to achieve regulation size by cutting into the hillside and constructing a retaining wall. The existing playground would be augmented with new elements, solar shading, and stormwater management features. A new play area featuring a naturalistic mound, which can be used for a fort and in other games, would be connected to the playground. A slide down the hill would be added to the playground, a splashpad next to the playground would be repaired, and the pavilion and picnic areas near the playground would be retained. Walking and exercise paths would circle the site. He indicated the sloped walk that would lead to the entry plaza, graded for compliance with accessibility standards. The new entry plaza would have a spiraling design in the pavement; he indicated the pedestrian routes converging at the plaza from Alabama Avenue and from 41st Street, and he noted that the existing building turns its back on this area. Terraced planters and bioretention areas would establish a landscaped area in front of the new building, and community gardens behind the building would replace the existing gardens. The transformer and dumpster would be moved to the south, creating a back-of-house zone along the alley.
Mr. Scarbro presented an access plan for the site. He indicated the transit access from the Alabama Avenue bus stops; bicycle parking; and car parking on Alabama Avenue and 41st Street. Blue arrows identify existing gates that would remain, providing convenient access to the baseball field and other play areas; he also indicated the parking and service areas. He said the community has emphasized the need for walking paths, and many older residents walk around the site in the early morning; the proposal is to create a continuous one-fifth-mile path, compliant with accessibility standards. He said another element that is important to the community is the existing picnic pavilion, which is located along a potential shallow-slope access route between 41st Street and the entry plaza. The design team has developed several alternatives for this area, and two options for constructing a walk through the pavilion area without necessarily removing the pavilion have been developed. However, the suggestion at a recent community meeting was to solve multiple problems by removing the pavilion and replacing it with parking in addition to the new walk. He said this proposal has not been developed and needs to be discussed with the D.C. Department of Transportation to evaluate the additional curb cuts and other features; the goal is to provide all visitors with equitable access to the plaza and the building entrance.
Mr. Scarbro presented the proposed materials. He said the intent is to use similar materials and design motifs in the new building as in the existing one; the palette includes massive timbers in the gymnasium’s exposed roofing, vertically grooved fiber-cement panels to recall the existing striated concrete block, and composite metal panels. The north facade toward the playground and park is intended to create a reciprocal connection between building and landscape. The east facade toward 41st Street would include the entrance to the lobby. The intent is to minimize the height of the south facade along the alley in deference to the two-story houses along the alley’s south side; additional detailing would establish a rhythm for this facade. Inside, the main corridor would have lightwells to admit daylight throughout the building, and the gymnasium’s mezzanine-level track would supplement the outdoor loop walk. The large multipurpose room could be divided down the middle and would have a direct connection to the lobby and the outside. He said the goal is to have up to 100 percent of energy supplied by photovoltaic panels to meet the net-zero energy requirement and other sustainability standards.
Mr. Moore thanked the project team and asked the Commission members for questions and comments. Mr. Becker expressed appreciation for the project’s thoughtful planning. He said that, as a fan of mid-20th-century architecture, he likes the original building. He noted the suggestion in the presentation that the client is pushing to replace it with a new building, but the design team does not seem to have concluded that the existing building is unusable. Although it lacks an elevator and has been altered, he said that elevators can be added and the compromising additions could probably be removed. From the standpoint of energy and embodied carbon, as well as the efficiency and economy of construction, he suggested that the potential for reusing the existing building should be considered first. He asked if further investigation of adaptive reuse is possible.
Mr. Scarbro recalled the discussion early in the design process of possibly removing the gymnasium and finding ways to connect with the existing building. However, much of what exists does not work, and he cited problems such as water infiltration. He said a lot of work would be needed to return the building to a usable condition: much of it has been cut apart or eliminated, stairways have been added to its interior spaces, and making these spaces secure or accessible would be difficult. He also said that the building turns its back on the park and the city. Adapting it for reuse would require cutting the interior up even more than it has been already, which he said would be a disservice to both the community and to the original vision of Hartman-Cox Architects. For these reasons, the design team did not thoroughly study the question of reuse, but did study what would be necessary to keep part of the building; the conclusion was that this approach would not accommodate the program.
Mr. Becker asked whether the study involved producing actual drawings or simply presenting judgments; Mr. Scarbro said it included hand-drawn sketches of an elevation and plan. Mr. Becker said he would like to see additional studies, noting the frequently heard justification that an existing building has water damage or mechanical problems, or lacks an elevator; these observations are used as the basis to replace the building, although replacement means losing important resources. He said the additional studies should examine this building’s potential for reuse, how it would look, and how this would compare to the proposed design. He added that the proposed building looks good and has a strong concept, but its design does not appear to be necessarily inconsistent with reuse of at least part of the existing dramatic building. He added that having stairs in a building is not a problem for accessibility as long as a barrier-free route is also available.
Mr. Cox responded that many of the design decisions were driven more by community residents than by the client; the community residents are adamant that the building should be demolished and replaced with an entirely new structure, and the client is trying to fulfill their request. Mr. Becker asked for more specific information about the community’s dissatisfaction: Do they want everything to look brand new, or are they unhappy with the siting or with the lack of natural light? He said people reflexively want a brand-new thing, but the average layperson may not realize that adaptive reuse can often be better than a new building; he wants to be sure that this decision has been well informed by the professional judgment of the design team, not just by a demand for something new from the most vocal people. Mr. Cox reiterated that the idea of just reprogramming the building has been explored, but many members of the community objected to this. He said this is an older building in poor condition, which has been thoroughly studied; many of its features do not work for its current use, and it is more of a hindrance than a good community resource. He said the amount of time, energy, and money needed to make it work would not serve the community; the better, more cost-efficient decision is to replace it and provide what the community wants—a new energy-efficient building that meets the project requirements.
Mr. Scarbro added that the decisive event for the consideration of adaptive reuse was the e-mail sent by the D.C. HPO staff in June 2024, at the beginning of the project, saying that the HPO does not consider the building to meet the criteria for historic designation. He said this determination surprised him because he did not expect the HPO would thereby waive its review of the proposal, but he took it as a green light to plan for a new building. He said this e-mail led the project team away from adaptive reuse, but the decision was not made lightly, and he agreed to develop additional studies to show what would be needed to reuse the existing building. Mr. Becker expressed interest in exploring whether the current concept could be executed with the retention of existing materials, and whether this is something that the HPO would support. He emphasized the benefit in continuity of materiality, which may help with the budget as well as with the embodied carbon impact. He said the goal of net-zero energy consumption is great, but the current climate crisis dictates minimizing carbon from construction, and the best way to do that is to reuse existing structures.
Mr. Lenihan expressed his agreement, commenting that he would also like to see additional studies, including what the project team has done to explore reusing this architectural gem, to make sure this option is thoroughly considered.
Mr. Cook also agreed, and he directed his additional observations to the presented design. He acknowledged that the program and site are both challenging, and he observed that the building height along the south alley would be approximately 37 feet. He said that to a resident on the alley, this facade would look mean and bare; approximately the bottom twelve feet would be constructed of a darker brick punctuated only by two doors, with some windows in the area above. The southwest corner appears very solid, which should be illustrated in a perspective rendering. He suggested breaking down, articulating, or otherwise changing this facade and the zone of dark brick to make it appear friendlier to those living south of the recreation center. Mr. Scarbro said this could also be achieved by breaking up the massing to make this facade more pedestrian-friendly. Mr. Cook agreed, while noting that the interior program of a gymnasium limits what can be done with the facades. He added that the rendered proportions of the roof overhang seem heavy. He reiterated that he would like to see a rendering of the corner to make sure the building does not appear to be looming over the neighboring residences.
Mr. Scarbro said the community had asked for slightly less glazing on this elevation for easier maintenance. The daylight glare was studied further after preparing today’s submission, and the conclusion is that more shading is needed on this facade, which will help to break down the simple massing as well as reduce glare in the gymnasium. He added that the local representative on the Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) owns one of the houses on the alley and has been happy with the project. He noted that the existing building’s south elevation has no windows at all and its doors are at the corners, so it appears towering; the ANC member was pleased that the use of windows on the rear facade of the new building would alleviate this appearance. However, the proposed building volume is larger than what is there now, and the design team will therefore consider breaking up the mass in the vertical as well as the horizontal direction in considering how to reduce the apparent scale.
Mr. Moore concurred with the other Commission members in requesting further study of the potential for reusing the existing building. He acknowledged the community’s concerns about the existing building, including its accessibility, but he emphasized that people have to be presented with ideas, solutions, and visions for a spectrum of options in order to have an open and honest conversation. He questioned whether the community interactions were really a conversation, or even included a presentation of options. He emphasized the importance of realizing that people work with the information they have; the existing building is their strongest reference, but it is not the only possible alternative for reusing the building. He acknowledged the importance of listening to the people who will be most directly affected by the recreation center, but he said the role of designers for government buildings is to offer a wider range of solutions.
Mr. Moore said the issue of listening to the community also affects the perimeter of the site and the park. He said the presentation had noted the concerns raised by residents in the row houses to the west about access and entry to the park; the drawings show a significant barrier, including at the end of the residential street, necessitating what appears to be an extremely long route around the recreation center site for these residents to reach the park. He emphasized that this project will be a major reinvestment, and the planning process requires a certain type of engagement with the community about what makes a public space welcoming, generous, safe, and accessible in all possible ways. He said the illustrated solution of a high perimeter fence would be expensive and would also have a significant impact on this public space. He referred to the Parks Without Borders initiative in New York City, which explores having more conversations about addressing community concerns regarding issues such as safety and the perimeter of a park, while providing for better design and better access to the parks, which he considers to be the most important type of public space. He recommended further conversations between the project team and the community about how to address the concerns while also creating a better space for as many people as possible.
Mr. Moore expressed his appreciation for the amount of work that has been put into the proposed design, including the development of barrier-free connections so that all people will have similar points of connection and experiences when visiting the park and the building; he said these solutions are very well resolved and he commends the work.
Mr. Moore raised several concerns about the entry plaza. He observed that a conventional plaza is a space with multiple sites of engagement, activity, and use. However, the design for the proposed plaza lacks seating and shade; it would be simply a big paved space for the sake of having a big paved space, with some art in the middle of it. He said he does not think it would be successful; he suggested taking another look at the design and having more discussion with the community about how the space would be used by a wide range of users throughout the year and under various circumstances. He stressed the importance of this space as a site area that will have a direct connection with the building; as proposed, the plaza seems like an old model of a big empty space used to highlight a building’s entrance facade. He said the design team has gone through the difficult effort of working out the grades, access, and infrastructure to make the entry plaza available to people; but it has more potential, and he suggested giving further consideration to plantings, shade, and seating to resolve and give intention to the proposed layout and configuration.
Mr. Scarbro responded that many of the plaza concerns have already been raised, and he returned to an illustration of the proposed design. One idea is to augment the spiral design of the plaza’s paving with bench seating on the outside ring. He said the project team is considering how to activate the plaza space, both as a way to promote connectivity and community, and also as a way to bring people to different areas of the plaza. He said these ideas will continue to be refined as the design is developed.
Mr. Scarbro clarified that the illustrated fence wrapping around the site is existing; the community has supported keeping the fence because recently people have been entering the site after hours and congregating there. He said other, better solutions could be possible instead of keeping the current fence, depending on whether the project budget allows for replacing it with something more visually appealing. He reiterated that the community has asked for two existing gates to the be removed; the design team is working with the community, DGS, and DPR to find a middle ground that will promote connections between the site and the community.
Mr. Calleri and Mr. Scarbro indicated a perspectival rendering and described the vision for the entry plaza in more detail. The intent is to bring people from 41st Street and the alley up to the plaza. Once at the plaza, a visual connection would be made to the playgrounds, as well as opening the curves back toward the brick area of the building to create more connection. He indicated the images of wood benches and the “gathering stones” of the spiral paving. The plaza would be a place to repeat an element at a smaller scale to create connections with the larger scale. Further exploration will include breaking up the large extent of the spiral paving with plantings, with the intent of keeping the idea of the plaza while creating areas for smaller groups. The landscape would therefore be used to benefit the programming of the plaza.
Mr. Moore said this is the kind of thinking and framework that is needed. He asked the project team to provide further ideas about the design, and to discuss the existing fencing with the community; he said the result should include deference to the neighborhood residents along with further thought about basic urban questions of how people will access the site, and how far around they have to walk before reaching a gate. He emphasized the need to be inclusive for people with different abilities, and to have many conversations that include many people.
Mr. Moore noted that the Commission members have raised a variety of issues, and Mr. Becker said the requested additional consideration of adaptive reuse should include a schematic drawing showing how the existing building could fulfill the program. Mr. Luebke said that many questions remain about the architecture and articulation of the proposed new design, and particularly about the site and its perimeter, the question of public space, and of control and access to the site. He said the staff will summarize this complicated list of things and may schedule a staff site visit to better understand the issues. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
E. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 17/OCT/24-6, 2026 Semiquincentennial Circulating Coin Program (Dime, U.S. Constitution Quarter, Declaration of Independence Quarter, Abolitionism Quarter, Suffrage Quarter, Civil Rights Quarter, and Half Dollar). Designs for obverse and reverse. Final. (Previous: CFA 18/JUL/24-1)
Secretary Luebke introduced the design alternatives for seven circulating coins to be issued in 2026 as part of the Semiquincentennial celebration of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The broader program encompasses all of the nation’s circulating coins. In February 2024, the Commission reviewed relatively minor design modifications for the 2026 issue of the one- and five-cent circulating coins. In July 2024, the Commission provided comments on an information presentation for most of the remaining coins; today’s submission includes more refined designs for these coins and for several additional quarters that have not been presented previously. The Mint has established a theme for each of these seven coins, and the numerous design alternatives were reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) earlier this week; the preferences of the CCAC will be highlighted during the presentation. He asked April Stafford, Chief of the Office of Design Management at the Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Stafford said the one-year program of redesigned coinage for 2026 is a significant change that will interest the general public as well as coin collectors. The program will bring back an allegorical portrayal of Liberty, which has not been part of the nation’s circulating coinage for nearly eighty years, and which will also introduce new concepts and imagery. The themes for the different denominations—the dime, the five quarters, and the half-dollar—are intended to create a three-part narrative: the dime addresses the conceptual origin of the nation with the theme “Liberty Over Tyranny,” followed by the five quarters that highlight major assertions of the founding principles across the past 250 years, and the half-dollar theme will look ahead to the work of maintaining our republic into the future. The obverse of all of the coins will include the inscription “1776” as well as the minting year “2026” to denote the 250-year commemoration.
Dime (Liberty Over Tyranny theme)
Ms. Stafford said the dime’s theme calls for exploration of the revolutionary era in the nation’s history, providing the background for the aspirations and ideals that will be explored in the other coins. The obverse alternatives are inspired by the nation’s early coinage that replaced the British monarch with an allegorical figure personifying Liberty. The inscription “Liberty,” while required for all coins, is given greater prominence on the obverse to emphasize the theme for the dime. The reverse designs are intended to be emblematic of the quest for liberty.
Ms. Stafford presented thirteen alternatives for the obverse and eight alternatives for the reverse. She said the CCAC recommended obverse #3 and reverse #3A; among numerous high-rated alternatives in the CCAC’s scoring system, obverse #3 was preferred because it is reminiscent of early American coinage, including most of the historical designs for the dime until the current Franklin D. Roosevelt dime was introduced in 1946. The preferred reverse depicts an eagle in flight carrying arrows, representing the American colonists’ fight for independence.
Mr. Moore invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook asked if any significance is associated with a right-facing or left-facing pose for the depiction of Liberty. Ms. Stafford said the profile facing toward the right side of the coin could be seen as looking toward Britain to symbolize the struggle for independence; additionally, the CCAC discussed the advantage of reversing the direction from the longstanding Roosevelt portrait in order to create a contrast and draw the public’s attention to the 2026 redesign. She confirmed that the direction of the pose is not specifically associated with looking forward or backward.
Mr. Becker asked for clarification of the differences between reverse alternatives #3 and #3A, observing that reverse #3 appears to be slightly simpler and more clear than the CCAC’s preference for reverse #3A. Ms. Stafford responded that reverse #3A has the additional inscription “Liberty Over Tyranny,” which is considered an important feature by the subject-matter experts advising the Mint and the CCAC. She acknowledged that legibility of the design is a concern, particularly for the small size of the dime; she said the Mint staff has reviewed all of the designs to confirm that they would be legible, and she compared the design to the somewhat complex reverse of the current Roosevelt dime. Mr. Becker reiterated his support for reverse #3 as a clear and legible design; Mr. Cook agreed. Mr. Becker asked if the inscription “Liberty Over Tyranny” could be included by substituting it for “E Pluribus Unum”; Ms. Stafford confirmed that “E Pluribus Unum” is required for the coin, and she said that reverse #3 has been included to show the option of omitting the “Liberty Over Tyranny” inscription.
Secretary Luebke noted that the Commission can make its own recommendation regardless of whether it differs from the CCAC’s preference. Mr. Becker observed that reverse #3 would pair well with obverse #1A, which was among the CCAC’s highest-scoring obverse designs although the CCAC’s final preference was for obverse #3. Mr. Moore joined in supporting reverse #3 instead of #3A, citing the issue of legibility and the small size of the dime; Mr. Cook agreed, and Mr. Lenihan said that either of these reverses would be acceptable.
Mr. Moore suggested a consensus to support obverse #1A, which he said is preferable to the portrait with a Liberty cap in obverse #3; he recalled the Commission’s past discussion about the Liberty cap being a symbol from France that may not have strong cultural resonance for the United States. He suggested reversing the direction of the profile portrait in obverse #1A to more closely resemble the composition of obverse #3. He observed that the figure of Liberty in obverse #1A is more appropriate for a present-day coin because it acknowledges the people who were present in the 1770s but would not have been depicted in the artwork of that time; he emphasized the importance of these considerations in recommending a design.
Mr. Cook commented that obverses #1A and #3 are both strong designs, and he agreed that obverse #1A is emerging as a better choice. He asked about the meaning of the hair adornment in obverse #1A; Ms. Stafford said it symbolizes victory. Mr. Becker observed that the inscription “Liberty” is slightly more prominent in obverse #1A than in obverse #3, which is advantageous if the commission recommends a reverse design that omits the inscription “Liberty Over Tyranny.” Mr. Cook cited the well-organized composition of the inscriptions in obverse #1A to frame the portrait of Liberty, and Mr. Becker emphasized that obverse #1A would pair well with reverse #3.
Mr. Lenihan expressed support for the comments that have been provided. He commented that the entire set of 2026 coins should provide a balanced representation of the nation’s diversity of races and ethnicities, and the Commission may need to consider the full set instead of responding to the alternatives for each coin in isolation.
Mr. Cook offered a motion to recommend obverse #1A and reverse #3 for the dime. Mr. Becker suggested including a request to consider reversing the direction of the portrait in obverse #1A, which Ms. Stafford confirmed could be feasible. Mr. Moore and Mr. Lenihan supported the idea of reversing the portrait; Mr. Lenihan observed that the reversal could result in Liberty’s hair overlapping the “L” of “Liberty,” and further study may be needed such as adjusting the scale of the portrait. The Commission members acknowledged that the reversal could be abandoned if it proves to be problematic. Mr. Cook agreed to include these additional comments as part of his motion; upon a second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission adopted this recommendation.
Quarter #1 (Declaration of Independence theme)
Ms. Stafford said the five quarters would mark major historical points in the nation’s 250-year history, and they would emphasize the inscription “E Pluribus Unum” to suggest the goal of conveying the nation’s collective story. The first quarter honors the Declaration of Independence as the earliest and boldest expression of the values and aspirations that define our national identity. The obverse alternatives for this quarter feature a personification of Liberty, sometimes including more specific references to the Declaration of Independence; the reverse alternatives include the phrase “Declaration of Independence” along with required coinage inscriptions.
Ms. Stafford presented nine alternatives for the obverse and ten alternatives for the reverse. She said the CCAC recommended obverse #2 featuring Liberty cradling the spark of enlightenment for the new nation, and reverse #8 featuring the Liberty Bell; among many high-scoring designs, the CCAC selected these as the best pairing. She noted that some of the reverse designs have also been adapted as alternatives for the 2026 platinum coin, which will share the theme of the Declaration of Independence (agenda item II.E.2).
Mr. Moore invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker supported obverse #2 as more elegant and clear than the other designs; he suggested careful consideration of how it would pair with the several reverse designs that received high scores from the CCAC. He commented that reverse #8, preferred by the CCAC, is an elegant design; he also supported reverse #10, which earned a high score, and he cited both of these reverse designs for their clarity.
Mr. Lenihan joined in supporting reverses #8 and #10, and he said that reverse #8 pairs best with obverse #2. Mr. Cook agreed, commenting that the spark of enlightenment in obverse #2 is interesting but may be difficult to understand. He observed that some reverse designs render the denomination as “25 Cents” and some as “Quarter Dollar.” Ms. Stafford responded that the artists were given latitude to choose whichever phrasing worked best in the composition, although legislation and other constraints often prevent such flexibility. Mr. Cook expressed a preference for “Quarter Dollar,” which Ms. Stafford said has been cited as more appropriate by some other reviewers.
Mr. Cook asked about the strong rendering and dark lettering of the inscription “In God We Trust” in obverse #2. Ms. Stafford clarified that dark lettering is used as an instruction for the text to be incused in the sculpting process; raised lettering would not be feasible because this text runs across the sculpted portrait of Liberty. She contrasted this condition with reverse #8, where the inscriptions would be composed of raised lettering above the flat field; she added that either sculpting method would be perceived similarly on the minted coin.
Mr. Moore expressed support for the consensus to recommend obverse #2 and reverse #8, consistent with the CCAC’s preferences. He noted that the obverse alternatives include depictions of Liberty carving herself from a block of stone, which he recalled as an interesting design approach that had been included in the July 2024 information presentation. While acknowledging that this concept did not emerge as a design preference in the current submission, he encouraged this unconventional thinking in searching for different ways to depict a theme. Ms. Stafford expressed appreciation for this support; she noted that the CCAC considered these designs carefully but concluded that they would not work well as obverses within the full set of 2026 coins, which is envisioned as having some consistency of character. She said that the Mint may submit versions of these designs in the future for other coin programs.
Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission recommended obverse #2 and reverse #8, consistent with the preferences of the CCAC.
Quarter #2 (U.S. Constitution theme)
Ms. Stafford said the second quarter commemorates the Constitution for putting into practice the aspirations outlined in the Declaration of Independence, providing the functional framework for the country’s governance. The obverse alternatives again feature a personification of Liberty; the reverse alternatives include the phrase “U.S. Constitution” or “The Constitution” or “Constitution of the United States of America,” and some include the phrase “We the People” from the Constitution’s preamble.
Ms. Stafford presented five alternatives for the obverse and thirteen alternatives for the reverse. Similar to quarter #1, some of the designs have also been adapted as alternatives for the 2027 platinum coin, which will share the theme of the Constitution (agenda item II.E.2). She said the CCAC recommended obverse #2 featuring Liberty striding confidently toward the future while holding a torch, and reverse #9 depicting the back of the ornately carved chair used by George Washington at the Constitutional Convention; the chair’s carving includes a sun whose symbolism was notably discussed by Benjamin Franklin. She noted that the CCAC gave careful consideration to the relationship among the allegorical depictions of Liberty on the different coins, especially for the related historical themes of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. For reverse #9, the CCAC recommended reversing the positions of “Liberty” and “U.S. Constitution” to allow for adequately sized lettering; she said the CCAC considered that enlarging the phrase “U.S. Constitution” may inspire the public to learn more about how this topic relates to the somewhat obscure feature of the chair back.
Mr. Moore invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker asked if the chair motif has previously been used; Ms. Stafford responded that it has not been used on U.S. coinage. Mr. Becker said the understanding of the chair back is obvious when explained, but on its own this fragmentary design element, devoid of context, is not very legible. He asked for clarification of how widely this quarter would be seen; Ms. Stafford said many millions, perhaps billions, would be minted in 2026. Mr. Becker observed that most people who see this coin will therefore not have the benefit of an explanation for its subject matter, and he suggested considering another reverse design. Ms. Stafford said the CCAC’s other high-scoring choice was reverse #7, which boldly features the phrase “We the People”—a textual emphasis that was strongly encouraged by the subject-matter experts from the Library of Congress and the National Archives.
Mr. Cook said he shares the concern with selecting reverse #9; he praised its composition and the meaning of the design as explained, but he acknowledged the obscurity of the historical meaning. He also noted that cryptic references are somewhat common, such as on the back of the one-dollar bill. Mr. Lenihan agreed in commending the composition of reverse #9 while questioning its comprehensibility to the public. He also observed that the “25¢” denomination is not prominent, possibly resulting in the public’s confusion about the value of the coin. He summarized the trade-offs between a composition that is beautifully composed but not understandable, raising the question of whether the public’s understanding of the design’s meaning is even necessary.
Mr. Moore said the explanation of the chair’s significance causes him to support reverse #9 less, not more: this design’s story focuses on George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, oddly highlighting just two prominent men instead of the larger participatory process that led to the creation of the Constitution with its emphasis on “We the People.” He said he does not support using the motif of the chair, and he discouraged this avenue for inviting the public to think and learn more about the founding of the nation. He also observed that emphasizing Washington and Franklin might merely raise questions of which other important men are omitted from the story, such as James Madison.
Mr. Moore observed that the historicist lettering of “We the People” in reverse #7 has a cartoonish character, and he suggested consideration of reverse #12 as a less caricatured treatment of this text in combination with the U.S. flag. Ms. Stafford added that reverse #10 also provides a combination of the flag and “We the People,” with an emphasis on the act of writing the Constitution. Mr. Moore said that any of the designs emphasizing this phrase could merit further consideration, including the architectural motif of Independence Hall in reverse #11, which Ms. Stafford noted would appropriately relate to the setting of the Liberty Bell featured on the Declaration of Independence quarter.
Mr. Becker said he agrees with the concerns that have been raised; the coins are intended to be symbols of the nation’s values, and Independence Hall has a more powerful symbolic value than Washington’s chair. He added that he has attempted to research the origins of the chair, which may be from England instead of being an example of early American furniture craftsmanship. He encouraged consideration of other reverse designs that would not have problematic connotations.
Mr. Cook commented on the simplicity of reverse #12 in conveying its message. Mr. Becker noted the wide variety of designs that emphasize the text “We the People.” Mr. Lenihan said he supports using this phrase as the central message of the coin, and he commented that reverse #11 pairs best with the preferred obverse #2. Mr. Becker and Mr. Moore agreed in support of this combination. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission recommended obverse #2 and reverse #11.
Quarter #3 (Abolitionism theme)
Ms. Stafford said the remaining three quarters had not been included in the July 2024 information presentation. Instead of the allegorical Liberty figure, these quarters feature historical people on the obverse; she said this responds to the guidance of government advisors and the general public, during the planning in recent years for the Semiquincentennial coinage program, to include both the traditional Liberty and newer historical figures beyond the traditional presidents. The remaining three quarters are envisioned as depicting liberty in action, engaged in the process of realizing “a more perfect union.”
Ms. Stafford said the obverse design alternatives for the abolitionism quarter feature Frederick Douglass, the respected 19th-century statesman and a key leader in the abolitionist movement. The inclusion of Douglass instead of a U.S. president would mark an expanded recognition of the nation’s significant political figures. The reverse designs are emblematic of the abolition of slavery in the U.S. and they include the inscription “Abolitionism,” although the CCAC has recommended changing this to “Abolition.” She acknowledged the numerous scholars and historians who have contributed to developing this coin’s design, including a descendant of Douglass and a Smithsonian curator.
Ms. Stafford presented eight alternatives for the obverse and eleven alternatives for the reverse. She said the CCAC recommended obverse #1 with a resolute portrait of Douglass in profile, and reverse #1 with shackled and unshackled hands to symbolize the passage from enslavement to freedom. She noted that the recommended portrait depicts Douglass in his later years; he was age 47 when slavery was abolished in the U.S., but the CCAC supported the portrait at an older age to emphasize Douglass’s later contributions as an American statesman, and this portrait would also be in keeping with the portraits of presidents seen on the nation’s current coinage.
Mr. Moore invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook expressed support for obverse #1, as preferred by the CCAC, but he questioned the need for the circular line between the portrait and the peripheral inscriptions; he suggested consideration of removing this line. Similarly, for reverse #1, he suggested consideration of removing the vertical line at the center of the composition. Mr. Becker asked if the obverse and reverse designs are prepared by different artists. Ms. Stafford said the authorship varies; for the CCAC’s recommended pairing, obverse #1 and reverse #1 were designed by the same artist, which may be why both designs use lines to separate parts of the compositions.
Mr. Becker offered support for obverses #2 and #2A, which depict Douglass at a somewhat younger age; he said these designs seem clearer and less crowded. For obverse #1, he questioned the choice to bleed the portrait to the lower edge of the quarter, which he described as a more modern compositional approach compared to a more traditional sense of a border. He agreed that the circular line in obverse #1 contributes to the concern that this design is too busy.
Mr. Moore noted that this coin is intended to commemorate abolitionism generally rather than Frederick Douglass specifically; Ms. Stafford confirmed this intent. Mr. Moore suggested consideration of obverse #4, which includes additional people in the background along with a prominent depiction of Douglass; this composition would better convey the sense of abolitionism as a movement. He asked if this issue had been discussed by the CCAC, acknowledging the potential awkwardness of raising this question in the presence of a Douglass descendant. Ms. Stafford said the question of emphasizing an individual or a movement had arisen for several of the coins being presented today; obverse #4 was intentionally developed to illustrate Douglass as an advocate for abolition. She said the CCAC concluded that obverse #4 seems too much like a reverse design that would not be suitable for the quarter’s obverse; she noted that Douglass and his house were featured on the reverse of a quarter in the America the Beautiful series, and the 2026 quarter provides the opportunity to move Douglass to the obverse as the primary focus. She added that the CCAC gave strong consideration to obverses #2 and #2A, which portray Douglass at an age corresponding to the historical event of the abolition of slavery; the CCAC concluded that these designs were very compelling, with a portrait that would be commensurate with the familiar presidential portraits on coins. However, the CCAC chose obverse #1 because its iconic portrait of Douglass better represented the entirety of his work in moving the nation forward, including his years as an elder statesman after the period of the abolition movement. She emphasized Douglass’s involvement in a wide range of national issues, including attendance at the Seneca Falls convention for women’s suffrage—an example of the interesting overlaps among the themes for the 2026 coins. She summarized the CCAC’s conclusion to support focusing on Douglass as an individual who moved the nation forward, even as the coin represents the larger abolitionist movement.
Mr. Cook reiterated his support for obverse #1, citing the portrait’s sense of Douglass as a symbol of the fierce determination that was necessary to push forward the larger abolitionist movement. He said that history can sometimes seem sanitized with a sense of people just learning to get along, but the actual history involved addressing tough situations that Douglass and others had to address, as suggested successfully by this portrait. Mr. Lenihan agreed, commenting that the portrait in obverse #1 has the boldest expression, depicting Douglass as stern and powerful-looking. To address the concern with conveying the larger movement instead of focusing solely on Douglass, he suggested consideration of reverse #3, which shows multiple people’s hands helping to hold up a torch at the U.S. Capitol dome.
Mr. Moore agreed to support obverse #1, with removal of the circular line that he described as inappropriately resembling a Byzantine-style halo for Douglass’s portrait. With Douglass himself emphasized on the obverse, he supported choosing a reverse design that would relate more directly to the abolitionist movement. However, he expressed frustration that the reverse alternatives rely almost entirely on male figures, incorrectly conveying that abolitionism was a male-only movement; he said this concern is an example of the larger issue of how the Mint considers gender in developing a set of design alternatives for the Commission’s consideration. He cited reverse #7 as the only design that appears to include gender diversity, but he suggested using a phrase such as “The Progress of Human Liberty” instead of “All Men Are Created Equal.” Ms. Stafford noted that the inscription “The Progress of Human Liberty” on another reverse alternative is a quotation from Douglass. She said the CCAC considered placing the woman at the center of the composition in reverse #7, among the several people ascending a staircase. Another suggestion from the CCAC meeting was that any of the hands in reverses #2 and #2A could be depicted as women’s hands, conveying the theme of many Americans coming together to achieve abolition, not limited to men or enslaved people.
Mr. Moore summarized that reverse #1, the preference of the CCAC, would not be an appropriate representation of the abolitionist movement because it depicts two hands that are clearly male, breaking free from shackles. He reiterated the suggestion to consider reverse #7 with revised text, or a version of reverses #2 and #2A. Mr. Becker commented that none of the reverse alternatives has the right balance of meaning. Secretary Luebke noted that the Commission could decide not to support any of the submitted alternatives; he also suggested that the Commission focus on issues of design. He observed that alternative #2A could be a compelling and simple choice: the hands are not strongly gender-specific, and the design focuses on breaking free from shackles to achieve freedom. Mr. Cook said that he considers reverses #2 and #2A to be strong candidates, using a somewhat more abstract compositional concept. Mr. Moore agreed that the pulling gesture of the hand on the right results in a powerful composition, and the coin’s reverse could explicitly focus on the abolitionist movement with its multiplicity of people to balance the obverse’s focus on Douglass.
Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission recommended obverse #1 and reverse #2A, with consideration of removing the circular line from obverse #1. Secretary Luebke asked if the Commission has a preference for changing the inscription “Abolitionism” to “Abolition,” noting that the staff supports this change. Ms. Stafford said that the Mint has received varying advice; abolitionism refers to the broader movement, while abolition refers more specifically to the end of slavery. She said the choice may be influenced by the theme inscriptions for the next two quarters, which are “Suffrage” and “Civil Rights.” She offered to confer further with scholars and historians, with consideration of the preference given by the CCAC and the Commission. Mr. Moore suggested that the Commission defer to the experts in this field for the choice of wording; he noted the widespread awareness that the abolition provided by the 13th Amendment did not completely resolve the issue, and the reference to the broader movement of “abolitionism” may be the appropriate choice.
Quarter #4 (Suffrage theme)
Ms. Stafford said this quarter would set aside classical representations by portraying Liberty as a suffragist in a specific period of the nation’s history when women were fighting for the right to vote. The obverse’s suffragist would stand for the thousands of Americans who contributed to the movement; the reverse would be emblematic of the movement and the resulting 19th Amendment. She presented four alternatives for the obverse and six alternatives for the reverse. She said the CCAC recommended obverse #1B featuring a suffragist carrying a protest flag, and reverse #4 featuring a rosette-style button, with some qualifications. The phrase “Votes for Women” is prominently featured in both of these designs; the CCAC was inconclusive in its consideration of how to resolve this redundancy, requesting the Mint staff to consult further with the subject-matter experts. The subsequent advice from the experts is to reject reverse #4 and to select reverse #1. The experts concluded that the repetition of the “Votes for Women” phrase was unresolvable: substituting alternative text such as “Suffrage” in the reverse’s rosette would be infeasible within the small circular space at the center of the composition, and removing “Votes for Women” from the suffragist’s flag on the obverse would eliminate the purpose of including the flag as a key compositional element. Additionally, the experts commented that the rosette button was used in some regions but was not a national symbol of the suffrage movement; many types of buttons were worn, and the rosette is not representative of the movement’s diversity because it was typically used by upper-class women. The experts commented that reverse #1—featuring five arms and hands, including a child’s, reaching up to support a stone block inscribed with “Liberty / Equality / Justice for Women / Suffrage”—is superior in conveying the magnitude and diversity of the suffrage movement involving many women across multiple generations, which they cited as critically important as a counterbalance to the lone suffragist on the obverse. They said that reverse #1 further conveys that the work toward suffrage continued long after the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
Ms. Stafford said the CCAC’s comments included a concern that reverse #1 might imply that the women were oppressed, with their arms struggling to support a stone block above them. The subsequent response of the experts was that suffragists did have to fight, and the movement was a struggle; they encouraged a design that would honor the suffragists’ courage rather than detract from the movement by “beautifying” it. They emphasized that the coin design should illustrate the multi-class, multi-racial coalition that formed across generations to achieve suffrage for women, while the rosette motif on the coin might be more divisive than educational.
Ms. Stafford summarized that the suffrage theme is especially challenging to convey in a coin design; the Mint had also faced this challenge in developing a design for the 2020 silver dollar commemorating the centennial of women’s suffrage. She noted the relatively small number of alternatives for this 2026 quarter, resulting in the Mint’s decision to keep all of the presented alternatives rather than remove some that had encountered objections; she added that the rosette motif is historically accurate, notwithstanding the concerns of the experts. She also noted that reverse #1 initially received the highest score from the CCAC, although the recommendation for reverse #4 emerged on the CCAC’s second day of deliberations, when the experts were not present.
Mr. Moore expressed appreciation for the additional insights provided by the experts, and he invited questions and comments from the Commission members, beginning with the obverse as a less controversial decision. Mr. Lenihan offered support for obverse #1B, the preference of the CCAC. Mr. Cook questioned whether the two-line inscription “E Pluribus Unum” in obverse #1B is too large, possibly competing with the important text “Votes for Women” on the suffragist’s flag. Mr. Moore agreed, commenting that the single-line configuration of “E Pluribus Unum” in obverse #1 is better balanced in relation to the flag’s lettering. Secretary Luebke noted that the Commission could recommend the basic composition of obverse #1B—the central suffragist without any of the background elements seen in obverses #1 and #1A—while requesting the configuration of peripheral inscriptions seen in obverse #1; the recommendation could also be phrased as supporting obverse #1 but with the background figures removed. Mr. Cook said he prefers the placement of “In God We Trust” as shown in obverse #1B more than in obverse #1. Mr. Luebke summarized the consensus to support obverse #1B but with “E Pluribus Unum” composed as in obverse #1.
For the reverse, Mr. Moore said that he supports the opinion of the Mint’s subject-matter experts that a coin honoring a historic movement should depict it as a movement. Mr. Becker offered support for reverse #1, citing the reasons given by the experts; he described reverse #1 as a strong design. Mr. Moore and Mr. Lenihan agreed. Mr. Luebke questioned the need for the two small squares serving as intrapuncts to frame the inscription “Equality” in reverse #1. Mr. Moore observed that a round intrapunct is also included between “United States of America” and “Quarter Dollar” at the bottom of the composition; Mr. Luebke observed that this dot serves a purpose in separating unrelated phrases, while the intrapuncts framing “Equality” do not serve this purpose. Mr. Cook supported removing the intrapuncts framing “Equality,” with Mr. Moore’s agreement.
Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission recommended obverse #1B and reverse #1, with the comments provided.
Quarter #5 (Civil Rights theme)
Ms. Stafford said the Civil Rights quarter would embody Liberty by featuring six-year-old Ruby Bridges, who was the first Black child to desegregate her all-White school and would represent the nation’s broader Civil Rights movement. While featuring a child on a circulating coin’s obverse is unexpected, it would underscore the weighty responsibility we have to future generations of Americans. Including a living person on a coin is also unconventional; it would emphasize that this history is not so distant, and the path clearly connects to the present. The coin’s reverse is intended to be emblematic of the Civil Rights movement and its quest to work through division and strive for equality in pursuit of a more perfect union.
Ms. Stafford presented six alternatives for the obverse and eight alternatives for the reverse. She said the CCAC recommended obverse #1 featuring a profile portrait of Ms. Bridges holding her schoolbooks, and reverse #2 featuring a row of people marching arm-in-arm and the large inscription “We Shall Overcome,” reminiscent of the iconic march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. She noted that Ms. Bridges has been consulting with the Mint and participated in the CCAC’s discussion of the design alternatives. For the group of people on the reverse, the Mint’s intent is to reflect a range of Americans who came together in the fight for civil rights.
Mr. Moore invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker offered strong support for obverse #1, as preferred by the CCAC. For reverse #2, he questioned why the marchers would be anonymous portraits instead of depicting the actual historical figures who participated. Ms. Stafford said that the artist worked with historical records as provided to the Mint by subject-matter experts. But depicting the actual people would require negotiating the license and publicity rights for each portrait; this was done with Ms. Bridges on the obverse but not for the reverse scene. The group of people is also intended to be broadly representative of the Civil Rights movement, as suggested by the experts, rather than focus on any specific historical person.
Mr. Cook acknowledged this concern but expressed discomfort with the group of portraits in reverse #2. He suggested consideration of reverse #2A, which is cropped to focus on the interlocked arms; while reminiscent of the Selma march, this composition would more broadly symbolize the larger movement of people who united for Civil Rights. Ms. Stafford observed that several of the Commission’s recommendations for reverse designs have followed a pattern of focusing on arms and hands, such as for the abolitionism quarter and the suffrage quarter; reverse #2A, more than #2, would continue this emphasis on the arms and hands. Noting the prior discussion of sensitivity to a diversity of gender in the designs, Mr. Cook suggested that the torsos in reverse #2A could be detailed to clearly suggest the inclusion of both men and women, perhaps by the clothing.
Mr. Becker joined in supporting reverse #2A. He suggested consideration of a cropping that would show more marchers, including a diversity of men and women, while still not showing their heads; he acknowledged the compositional challenge but suggested considering a narrower band for the scene of marchers. He emphasized that the inclusion of more people would make the scene more powerful; one solution would be to use the central scene in reverse #2A, which has more people, but to adjust it so the heads are not part of the image. He observed that the tapered inscription “We Shall Overcome” could be adjusted to use letters of equal height to better accommodate the revised proportions of the marching scene as a narrower rectangle. Mr. Lenihan supported this recommendation; he said the adjusted proportions could allow for the inclusion of a fourth marcher in reverse #2A, which could more easily be developed to show both men and women. Secretary Luebke observed that a row of four instead of three people would have a more balanced appearance by avoiding the emphasis of placing one person at the center; the Commission members supported this outcome, and Mr. Becker observed that a row of six people could be feasible within the narrowed proportions of the scene.
Mr. Becker suggested that the reconsideration of typography for the inscription “We Shall Overcome” should include coordination of the fonts for the selected obverse and reverse, with consideration of simplifying the fonts. Mr. Moore agreed; he also observed that the font shown for “We Shall Overcome” is apparently intended as a reference to a well-known historical font for this phrase, and he suggested more careful study to better match the historical lettering.
Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission recommended obverse #1 and reverse #2A, with the comments provided. Mr. Moore acknowledged Ms. Stafford’s comment on the emerging design motif of hands, seen on several of the reverse designs being recommended by the Commission. He observed the additional unifying motif of brief phrases with related wording, such as “We the People” and “We Shall Overcome.”
Half Dollar (Participatory Democracy theme)
Ms. Stafford said the theme for this coin involves looking ahead toward the future to consider what will be required of us to safeguard our republic for the next 250 years, with an emphasis on the critical role of the citizen in a participatory and knowledge-based democracy. The reverse designs serve as a call to action for citizen stewardship of liberty, sometimes with literal depictions of passing the torch to the next generation. Several of the reverses include a quotation from James Madison that the Mint provided to the artists: “Knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”
Ms. Stafford presented seven alternatives for the obverse and ten alternatives for the reverse. She said the CCAC recommended obverse #5 featuring the face of the Statue of Liberty to represent the promise of America and the principles of the nation, and reverse #5A featuring an adult’s hand passing a torch to a child’s hand, encircled by the Madison quotation. She noted that the CCAC also strongly supported reverse #6 as a beautiful design, with a close-up view of the top part of the Statue of Liberty’s torch as an enduring symbol of the nation, but concluded that combining obverse #5 with reverse #6 would give the appearance that the coin is simply commemorating the Statue of Liberty, detracting from the broader theme; additionally, reverse #6 does not include the Madison quotation.
Mr. Moore invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook described obverse #5 as a strong design, but he questioned the position of the inscription “1776–2026” directly adjacent to an eye of the Statue of Liberty. Unless the composition is deliberately placing the commemorative dates at the eye level, he suggested lowering this text to allow Liberty to have an unobstructed gaze, fulfilling the design intent of Liberty “looking outward as if to the future.” Mr. Becker agreed with this concern, and he also observed that one of the points of Liberty’s crown is awkwardly aligned to be projecting directly from the face’s nose. He suggested a slight counterclockwise rotation of the text and the crown points to eliminate these conflicts. He emphasized his general support for obverse #5 and its pairing with reverse #5A.
Mr. Lenihan joined in supporting the CCAC’s preferences with the requested adjustments. He questioned the appropriateness of featuring the Statue of Liberty on both sides of the coin; commenting that obverse #5 is the strongest alternative, he said that other reverse designs could be considered. Ms. Stafford responded that the combination was discussed and supported by the CCAC, and she noted that obverse #5 and reverse #5A were prepared by different artists. Mr. Luebke observed that reverse #6, ultimately rejected by the CCAC for the excessive focus on the Statue of Liberty, features the torch as a static design component of the statue, while reverse #5A depicts the action of the torch being handed off between two abstracted citizens as an element within a narrative.
Upon a motion by Mr. Cook, the Commission recommended obverse #5 and reverse #5A, consistent with the preferences of the CCAC, and with the comments provided for adjustments to the obverse. Mr. Moore conveyed the Commission’s hope that the Mint will be proud of these redesigned coins when they are issued in 2026.
2. CFA 17/OCT/24-7, American Eagle Platinum Proof coins for 2026, 2027, and 2028 (Charters of Freedom series). Designs for obverse. Final. (Previous: CFA 18/JUL/24-1) Secretary Luebke introduced the obverse design alternatives for a three-year sequence of platinum coins to begin in 2026. The platinum series began in 1997 as part of the Mint’s broader American Eagle series of non-circulating investment-grade coins in various metals that began in 1986. The platinum series has evolved to include multi-year themes, most recently the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment as symbolized on coins depicting the life cycle of an oak tree. The proposal for the next three-year sequence is based on the Charters of Freedom display in the National Archives rotunda: the Declaration of Independence for the 2026 coin, the U.S. Constitution for 2027, and the Bill of Rights for 2028. He asked April Stafford, Chief of the Office of Design Management at the Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Stafford noted that the Commission saw an initial version of these designs in July 2024 as an information presentation, with proposals from eight artists that focused on ideas for the 2026 coin. Based on the response from the Commission and from the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC), the Mint asked three of the artists to develop designs for all three coins. Today’s submission includes a proposed three-coin set from each artist; the Mint intends to select one of these sets after consideration of the guidance from the Commission and the CCAC.
Ms. Stafford presented the three sets of designs, noting the CCAC’s preference for set #1. For the 2026 coin within set #1, the CCAC recommends alternative #1A, which places thirteen stars at the periphery instead of the years 1776 and 2026. In supporting the treatment of the sun and sunlight rays on the 2026 coin, the CCAC recommended continuing this aesthetic with the sun and rays of the 2027 and 2028 coins. The CCAC recommended that the prominent tree on the 2027 coin be depicted more clearly as a young tree, perhaps with buds or fewer branches, instead of the windswept appearance as presented. For the child sitting at the base of the tree on the 2028 coin, the CCAC suggested avoiding similarity to a recent Boys Town commemorative coin. The CCAC also noted that the 2028 coin should have fourteen stars instead of thirteen, corresponding to the nation’s fourteen states when the Bill of Rights was ratified; the Commission can decide whether to support this change, and the Mint can develop a revision to the design.
Ms. Stafford said the CCAC did not support set #2 because of the excessive range of metaphors across the three coins. While the CCAC expressed some support for set #3, the CCAC’s coin collectors concluded that set #1 would best provide a unique identity for these three coins within the larger history of the platinum series.
Mr. Moore invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook, Mr. Lenihan, and Mr. Becker expressed agreement with the CCAC’s preference for set #1. Mr. Lenihan also supported the CCAC’s advice to revise the tree on the 2027 coin and the sun on the 2027 and 2028 coins. Mr. Cook supported the CCAC’s advice to add a 14th star to the 2028 coin, representing Vermont as the 14th state; the other Commission members agreed. Mr. Becker suggested consideration of locating the additional star at the bottom of the composition to replace the dot as an interpunct between the inscriptions “In God We Trust” and “E Pluribus Unum.” He also questioned the letter positioning for “Declaration of Independence” on the 2026 coin, observing that the first and last letters of “Independence” create pinch-points with the word “Declaration.” Secretary Luebke said that a solution could be to revise the curved alignment of “Independence” to be horizontal, which could fit within the composition if “Declaration of” is placed on a single line above it; Mr. Becker supported studying this revision. Mr. Luebke added that the similarly placed inscriptions on the 2027 and 2028 coins—“U.S. Constitution” and “Bill of Rights”—are both aligned horizontally.
Mr. Cook asked about the differing treatment of dates for alternatives #1 and #1A of the 2026 coin in set #1. Ms. Stafford clarified that alternative #1 includes the dates “1776” and “2026” at the upper edge in recognition of the Semiquincentennial year for the Declaration of Independence; alternative #1A simply places the minting year “2026” in the same position as “2027” and “2028” on the other two coins. Mr. Moore observed that the positions for the three minting years appear to be inconsistent, rising slightly with each year; Ms. Stafford offered to study this further. Mr. Cook asked if the number of sunlight rays has any symbolic significance, such as ten rays for the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights; Mr. Luebke noted that such symbolism is sometimes seen in the design of memorials, and Ms. Stafford said it is often used for the Mint’s designs.
Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission recommended set #1 with the comments provided. Ms. Stafford said the Mint will provide the Commission with revised versions of the presented alternatives in response to the advice that has been provided.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA
Secretary