The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:01 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Billie Tsien, Chair
Hon. Hazel Ruth Edwards, Vice Chair
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Peter Cook
Hon. Lisa Delplace
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Hon. Justin Garrett Moore
Staff present:
Thomas E. Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Jessica Amos
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 16 January meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the January meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the minutes.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 20 February, 20 March, and 17 April 2025.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting.
Appendix I – Government Submissions Consent Calendar: Mr. Fox said that all supplemental materials have been received for the consent calendar, which includes ten projects as well as the reporting of two reviews previously delegated to the staff. Upon a motion by Dr. Edwards with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said one case listed on the draft appendix with an unfavorable recommendation has been removed and is being held open for consideration in a future month (case number SL 24-043). Other 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 eight 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. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix. (See agenda item II.F for additional Shipstead-Luce Act submissions.)
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Ms. Amos said that all supplemental materials have been received for the appendix, which includes forty projects. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the revised Old Georgetown Act Appendix. Secretary Luebke noted the large number of cases in the February review cycle.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.D, II.E.4, II.F.1, and II.G.1. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without a presentation.
D. D.C. Department of Transportation
CFA 20/FEB/25-4, Arland D. Williams, Jr. Memorial Bridge (I-395 northbound roadway), between Virginia and the District of Columbia. Rehabilitation of vehicular bridge. Concept.
Secretary Luebke said the staff has consulted with the applicants on this project, which will largely be replacement-in-kind. He added that the Commission may wish to delegate further review to the staff; Chair Tsien supported this action. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the concept submission and delegated further review to the staff.
E. D.C. Department of General Services
4. CFA 20/FEB/25-8, Drew Elementary School, 5600 Eads Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept. Chair Tsien asked for any comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker noted the prominent medical achievements of the school’s namesake, Charles Drew; he suggested incorporating this cultural history into the design, as seen with some other D.C. school projects. He also encouraged developing a more unified relationship between the proposed additions and the renovation of the existing school. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the concept submission with these comments.
F. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
1. SL 25-021, The Portals I, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW. Renovations and additions to existing 8-story office building for residential use. Permit. (Previous: SL 24-166, September 2024)
Secretary Luebke said the design has not changed substantially since the Commission’s concept review, and the project team has been consulting with the staff to develop the details in response to the Commission’s previous comments. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the permit submission.
G. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 20/FEB/25-9, American Eagle Platinum Proof coins for 2027 and 2028 (Charters of Freedom series). Designs for obverse. Revised final. (Previous: CFA 17/OCT/24-7)
Secretary Luebke said the submission responds to the Commission’s previous comments requesting minor modifications to the reverse designs for the two coins. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the revised designs.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.1.
B. National Park Service
1. CFA 20/FEB/25-1, Tidal Basin, West Potomac Park. Master plan for landscape rehabilitation and management. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept for a master plan that would provide direction for the long-term management and rehabilitation of the cultural landscape surrounding the Tidal Basin in West Potomac Park. He noted that this area is a prominent part of Washington’s monumental core that has long suffered from deterioration. The proposal is based on the vision defined in the National Mall Plan and other documents. It encompasses a wide range of issues, among them multi-modal circulation and transportation, infrastructure and security, the protection of memorials and cultural landscapes, tree preservation, aquatic resources, the design of the basin’s edges, and the provision of flexible recreation spaces to accommodate a wide variety of events. He added that it addresses the design for a vehicle barrier system at the Jefferson Memorial, which is a long unresolved issue.
Mr. Luebke outlined the history of the Tidal Basin area. The basin was created in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through extensive hydrological improvements and land reclamation carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The landscape around the basin includes three national memorials: the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, the Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) Memorial, and the Martin Luther King, Jr., (MLK) Memorial, as well as significant landscape features and plantings such as the characteristic Japanese cherry trees that ring the basin and the bridges. The landscape was originally designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., although it has been considerably altered over the years. He said that in the decades since it was built the basin has faced significant challenges, among them an increasing number of visitors, rising sea levels, deterioration of its slopes, subsidence of the bulkheads, and deferred maintenance. Part of this undertaking has been the rebuilding of the stone bulkhead walls around the Tidal Basin; the first phase was approved by the Commission in May 2024 and is currently under construction. He added that the staff has continued to consult on this project, including inspection of mock-ups.
Mr. Luebke said the design team of David Rubin Land Collective and GWWO Architects has submitted three broad alternatives for this master plan, which propose numerous interventions at the perimeter of the Tidal Basin. Alternative A focuses on the connectivity of circulation, transportation, and infrastructure; Alternative B highlights the visitor experience, with less intensive interventions at historic elements; and Alternative C emphasizes sustainability and the management of ecological impacts. He asked Tammy Stidham, the associate regional director for lands and planning at the National Capital Region of the National Park Service (NPS), to begin the presentation.
Ms. Stidham said the previous presentations for the bulkhead project had recognized the Tidal Basin as an iconic feature in the city and an important area for preservation. In developing the bulkhead project, the NPS had determined the need for a comprehensive study of the Tidal Basin to consider questions of circulation, perimeter security, landscape, and visitation; extensive renovation is needed because this area has been so popular and heavily used. At the very early current stage of the master plan project, three alternatives have been developed in order generate feedback for developing a preferred alternative; a public scoping meeting was held earlier in the week, and the alternatives will be presented to the National Capital Planning Commission in two weeks. She introduced Danielle Peters of GWWO Architects to continue the presentation.
Ms. Peters said the proposal’s three wide-ranging alternatives are intended to help resolve the challenges at the Tidal Basin and address permanent physical security at the Jefferson Memorial. Comments are being solicited from a wide range of stakeholder groups. She asked landscape architect Gabriella Salvemini of David Rubin Land Collective to describe how the history of the site informed the development of the concept alternatives.
Ms. Salvemini said the project team conducted historic research, site visits, and inventory and analysis to develop a framework based on five goals; each alternative highlights two or three of these goals. They include the connectivity of the site, with consideration of multi-modal circulation and transportation; enhancing the visitor experience, especially with the idea of year-round use and recreation in the Tidal Basin area; managing the ecological impacts on the site and considering a sustainable approach for each impact; protecting the site’s cultural resources; and providing perimeter security at the Jefferson Memorial in a consistent way across all three alternatives.
Ms. Salvemini described the research on the history of both East and West Potomac Parks, which included special attention to the engineering of the Tidal Basin and the change from its initial design of four separate flushing basins to a single formal basin. The site has both influenced and shifted in response to large-scale planning within the city, including its unrealized incorporation within the formal framework of the McMillan Plan. She noted the legislative stipulation that recreation has an important role for this area; in developing the alternatives, the project team considered the many ways visitors have used and experienced the varied cultural landscapes around the Tidal Basin. Important considerations have included the different iterations of the historic Olmsted plan for the Jefferson Memorial and its final condition on completion in 1943. Key features of this Olmsted plan include using evergreens to frame the memorial; shaping the lawn south of the memorial as a keystone in plan; terracing the grading around the memorial; and creating an interplay of cherry blossom, canopy, and glade in the memorial landscape.
Ms. Salvemini said the project team visited the site during the peak bloom period of the cherry blossoms, which highlighted the many challenges that result from the high visitation at this time. She presented photographs showing the congestion, indicating places such as crosswalks where pedestrians encounter scooters, bicycles, and cars. Considerable congestion also occurs on the ten-foot-wide path that circles the basin. She said this heavy visitation has resulted in the degradation of the soil system; she presented photographs comparing the compacted soil at the edge of the Tidal Basin with the healthy soil system along the FDR Memorial’s perimeter fence. She said additional environmental issues result from tidal inundation and the depositing of sediment and water on the paths, which leads to unsafe conditions; the current bulkhead construction project is intended to remediate these problems. She noted the additional graphic materials developed during the site analysis, including flood zone maps and long-range planning issues regarding viewsheds. She also indicated the Jersey barriers that have been installed for perimeter security around the Jefferson Memorial.
Ms. Salvemini said the project team has considered different modes of transportation relating to the study area; one key regional connection is the protected bicycle lane that leads from the Mount Vernon Trail to 15th Street, NW, and beyond. The analysis considered the road system around the Tidal Basin area and the various ways people arrive via personal vehicle, bus, and shared rides. The analysis highlighted the existing plantings, including the narrow band of cherry trees around the edge of the Tidal Basin; although the trees are densely planted within this band, the plantings do not extend into some areas of the larger site. In conclusion, she said this research material has informed the project team’s understanding of the site and of the NPS needs. She introduced landscape architect David Rubin to present the three alternatives.
Mr. Rubin thanked the Commission staff for its consultation during the development of the proposal. He began with an overview of the master plan’s design challenge to seamlessly integrate perimeter security for the Jefferson Memorial within the overall Tidal Basin landscape. For comparison, he described the perimeter security solutions at the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, which include low retaining walls integrated into the landscape as well as bollards where needed to accommodate circulation. For the current study of the Jefferson Memorial, the requirement is to provide a minimum 400-foot secured zone around it, which is where temporary Jersey barriers have been placed. He said this ring of barriers cuts the accessible components of the Jefferson Memorial landscape in half; it limits the number of apertures through which pedestrians can enter the zone around the memorial; and it makes the memorial appear like an object within the landscape.
Mr. Rubin then presented the planning alternatives, which are intended to provide three significantly different options. The first, Alternative A, focuses on connectivity and multi-modal circulation, transportation, and infrastructure. It proposes removing the existing vehicular parking lot located at a low point in the landscape northeast of the Tidal Basin; currently, people have to walk through lines of parked vehicles to reach the basin. This alternative would realign Independence Avenue to gain more space; the parking lot would be moved farther to the northeast, and an additional playing field would be created west of the parking lot. He said these changes would let the site “breathe” and would also allow for extending the area of flowering cherry trees—the “pink cloud” surrounding the Tidal Basin—to spread beyond the basin’s edge.
Mr. Rubin indicated the proposal for a new pedestrian bridge at the southeast side of the site that would separate visitors from the Ohio Drive roadways they approach the Jefferson Memorial. The bridge would take visitors over the water, using the land’s topography to rise from and land upon the basin’s edge. Near the Jefferson Memorial, the concentration of cherry trees would be spread out; the cherry trees, in combination with the existing evergreens around the memorial, would reinforce Olmsted’s original design intent and would increase the density of trees at the basin’s edge and along East Basin Drive. He noted that the adjacent highway, constructed later than the Jefferson Memorial, creates a significant amount of noise in addition to the noise generated by the active rail line immediately to its south; he said the proposed changes should make the Tidal Basin landscape quieter, reinforcing its sense of sanctity.
Mr. Rubin described a second pedestrian bridge that would cross the north side of the Tidal Basin, paralleling the Kutz Bridge that crosses the lobe at the basin’s northern end; the intent is to provide more room for pedestrian circulation that is separated from the Kutz Bridge’s vehicular traffic. In Alternative A, the curving layout of the separate pedestrian bridge would evoke the original shape of the Tidal Basin and the northern lobe, and the new bridge would land on the west near the MLK Memorial.
Mr. Rubin said the existing ten-foot-wide path surrounding the Tidal Basin is too narrow to handle the large number of people who want to walk along the basin’s edge. The intent is to widen this path and to extend additional paths into the adjacent landscape to make it accessible and welcoming, broadening the experience of visiting the Tidal Basin. The proposed path system would provide access behind the FDR Memorial that would connect to paths around the playing fields in the southwest part of the Tidal Basin site, as well as to paths at the group of realigned playing fields to the northwest near the MLK Memorial. The massing of cherry trees would expand with the pedestrian path system. Paths at the north edge of the project area would provide safer pedestrian crossings at congested Independence Avenue to connect with the path systems of the Washington Monument and the Mall to the north, improving on the currently haphazard and confusing pedestrian crossings. He also indicated the proposed circulation for bicycles and scooters, as well as the placement of racks for these vehicles including the racks provided by Capital Bikeshare. He said the overall goal is to organize these components so that people can easily gain access to the site and connect to the different paths without interfering with the experience of visiting the Tidal Basin. Additionally, the intent is to broaden the distribution of cherry trees to such an extent that people can experience the sense of being enveloped within the blossoming trees, an experience important to Japanese culture. The trees would be planted more densely at the southeast around the Jefferson Memorial to abate noise, and extended on the west to the edge of the Potomac River.
Mr. Rubin presented the concept for perimeter security within the Jefferson Memorial landscape in Alternative A, which would use a ribbon of retaining walls that undulate through the landscape; he described the design as somewhat similar to the landscape at the Washington Monument. He said the most important thing about this concept is that it would allow visitors to approach the memorial from multiple points within the landscape; he called this a democratic way to provide access. Each length of wall would begin to taper towards its ends, supplemented by a small number of bollards. He said Alternative A emphasizes the fluid nature and undulation of the Jefferson Memorial site, and the wall’s alignment would be well beyond the minimum required setback of 400 feet. He presented a section drawing of the proposed path flanked by battered site walls, and an elevation drawing that shows the tapering of the walls and the ascent of the path into the secured area. The area within the security perimeter would have a mown lawn; the area outside the perimeter, toward the adjacent roadway, would have a meadow landscape that would need mowing only once a year. At the edge of the roadway, bicycle lanes would be marked by painted stripes.
Mr. Rubin then presented Alternative B, which focuses on the visitor experience; it would provide year-round recreation, vistas, viewsheds, and spaces in which people could gather. He said Alternative B has subtle differences from the others, such as reduced amount of parking in the northeast; additional parking would be placed at the northwest, behind the MLK Memorial and the recreation fields, providing a distribution of parking that is convenient for visitors. Vistas would be opened in the northeast part of the site to create occupiable spaces; topography would be used to create theatricality along with areas where people can see vistas through and over the cherry trees. He indicated the shaping of a space to the southwest that would focus on the vista looking northeast to the U.S. Capitol along the alignment of Maryland Avenue, a sightline that was originally planned for this landscape but had never been realized. He said the path layout in this area is intended to provide easy access to the Tidal Basin and to bring people through the area behind the FDR Memorial, which would relieve some of the pressure on the Tidal Basin edge and provide improved access to the playing fields and the Potomac River, extending the perception of the cultural landscape. The connections would be reinforced to the north part of the site and to the Kutz Bridge. In Alternative B, the inadequate four-foot-wide sidewalk on the Kutz Bridge would be widened by cantilevering it farther to the south, which could be achieved in conjunction with the planned rehabilitation of the bridge; the widened sidewalk would provide a vantage point for views. He also indicated the proposed new location for the “Floral Library,” in which seasonal flowers used in the Mall parks are planted. Bicycle traffic would be removed from the street, and racks and corrals for bicycles and scooters would be provided. At the southeast, the approach to the Jefferson Memorial would be slightly altered, and additional cherry trees would be planted.
Mr. Rubin presented the perimeter security concept for the Jefferson Memorial in Alternative B, which would include a stone-faced wall; he described this wall as following the gesture of a single fluid line. The wall would have a small number of gaps, protected with a few bollards, through which people would cross in and out of the secured zone. The perimeter would be near the adjacent roadway, beyond the 400-foot minimum requirement. A section taken through the site’s east side illustrated the retaining wall along a ten-foot-wide depression around the edge of the Jefferson Memorial landscape, which would prevent accelerating cars from veering into the site. Throughout the landscape, bicycle paths within a meadow landscape would be separated from the roadway.
Mr. Rubin presented Alternative C, which focuses on the site’s history, ecological impacts, and sustainability. In this alternative, some of the Tidal Basin’s edges would be elaborated with a treatment of gradual shelving on either side of the bulkhead walls that would allow for an increase in biodiversity, creating a habitat and recalling the area’s history of riparian edges. Penetrations through the bulkhead walls into the shelving would allow tides to flow into and out of the biodiverse riparian areas. All parking, with the exception of required handicapped-access spaces, would be removed from the northeast part of the site to allow for the creation of a significant landscape. The transportation focus would be on rideshare, buses, scooters, and other means instead of personal vehicles: the system of pedestrian and bicycle paths would be reinforced; the number of racks, corrals, and vending locations for bicycles and scooters would be increased; and more areas for drop-off from buses and cars would be added. The Floral Library would be incorporated within the north-south path system, making it more prominent. A new separate pedestrian bridge, parallel to the Kutz Bridge, would float across the Tidal Basin just above water level, responding to tidal change; this bridge would bring people down to the water’s edge to experience the riparian shelf and its plantings of water lilies, sedges, and grasses, plants that would thrive with inundation and create additional habitat. He said these plants would create resiliency in the landscape while also recalling the origin of the Tidal Basin as an engineered form. The baseball fields and other playing fields to the northwest would be reorganized, and would include a large gathering space.
Mr. Rubin described the treatment of the Jefferson Memorial area in Alternative C. West of the memorial, an area of shelving would extend into the Tidal Basin beyond the new embankment wall. To the southeast, pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be separated; the extent of cherry trees would be expanded, and an acoustic barrier between the Jefferson Memorial and the highway would be reinforced with evergreens and cherry trees. In this alternative, the perimeter security for the memorial—a curvilinear wall with minimal number of apertures—was inspired by the fluid nature of hydrodynamics. Similar to Alternative B, visitors would have limited access into the memorial precinct at the wall’s endpoints; the wall would also create places for stormwater catchment and riparian edge expansion. A ten-foot-wide depression outside the security wall would aid in stopping any vehicle trying to gain access to the site.
Mr. Rubin concluded by presenting a comparison of the three alternatives for the entire project area and for the treatment of the Jefferson Memorial area, emphasizing the differences in the placement of the memorial’s perimeter security line within the landscape.
Chair Tsien thanked the project team for the comprehensive presentation, and she invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace said the presentation contained an amazing amount of detail, and clearly the three alternatives contain important salient points and many good features; she anticipated that the resulting master plan will combine the best of each into one proposal.
Ms. Delplace commented that she loves the Tidal Basin area at all times of the year, not only in the spring when the cherry trees are blooming. However, she said the impact of 1.5 million visitors during the cherry blossom season is massive, with people walking everywhere throughout the landscape. Because of this, she stressed the need to carefully study solutions for pedestrian circulation, observing that some alternatives do not address this as clearly as needed. She said some of the detrimental effects of people roaming freely throughout the Tidal Basin area can be seen everywhere—from soil compaction to branches broken off the historic cherry trees. She strongly encouraged an even deeper study of pedestrian circulation, which will have to be robust regardless of which alternative or combination of alternatives is selected.
Ms. Delplace expressed support for the idea of removing parking, observing that the pressures are great and multi-modal transportation is available for visitors to get around the city. She said removing cars from the Tidal Basin area would return it to an approximation of its historic condition as a pedestrian park available for all to enjoy, a condition that is worth pursuing. She asked whether the current parking on Ohio Drive along the Potomac River would remain or be removed. Mr. Rubin said the intent is to retain it because it is located along the edge, where it is less compromising than the intrusion of vehicles into the interior landscape. People would still drive around looking for places to park, although parking in Alternative C would be limited to handicapped access. Ms. Delplace encouraged exploring the idea of reducing the parking along the river to handicapped-only; she observed that the park landscape along the river is a very narrow strip that is a favorite destination for people to visit and picnic, but parked cars along this edge do not present a good appearance.
Ms. Delplace said she strongly supports the idea of expanding the number of flowering cherry trees in order to decrease the concentration of visitors at the edge of the Tidal Basin. However, she suggested adding fewer trees along the Potomac River, or perhaps planting them in groups, to avoid having crowds of visitors at peak times interfere with people wanting to sit or picnic by the river. Additionally, the low-branching quality of cherry trees interferes with sitting beneath them. For developing the final plan, she recommended considering how to accommodate other activities that people want to pursue in this area throughout the year.
Mr. Moore said he is most interested in Alternative C because of how it deals with ecological impacts and the long-term effects of climate change and sea-level rise. While this alternative was described as addressing major storm events, he requested clarification of how this would actually work; he asked for more information about the shelves and wetlands, and about the effect of a major storm event on this landscape. Mr. Rubin said the new bulkhead is being built to an increased height, a significant intervention that will eventually be extended around the entire Tidal Basin. The bulkhead project will elevate and modify the landscape topography to support all the trees and people over the next century, an improvement that is part of the strategy for all three alternatives. The raised bulkhead height is assumed in Alternative C, but the intent would be to work with the engineers to create strategic punctures in the new bulkhead walls to allow tidal flows to bring inundation behind the walls; the water would move in and out of these edges around the Tidal Basin. He noted that the appendices contain additional information on the ecological concept for the shelving, omitted from the presentation for brevity, that would be used if this design approach is developed further. He added that the water depth north of the Kutz Bridge is shallower compared to the rest of the Tidal Basin; a shelf extending beneath the water would create a perfect opportunity to deploy large submersible basins of water lilies, rushes, and reeds—plantings that could be managed by the NPS—allowing for the establishment of habitats similar to the historic habitats of this area. He said the raised bulkhead is intended to prevent the rising sea level from overwhelming the cultural resource of the basin and memorials, but Alternative C would also allow water to function as it would naturally; the goal would be to remind people that this is a living system, and the artifice of an embankment is a man-made architectural construct in contrast to the riparian Potomac edge.
Mr. Moore said he appreciates that further work is needed in developing Alternative C, which has the most potential and would be most worth the time to study more closely; this design approach would “put the tidal back in the Tidal Basin.” He added that elements from the other alternatives could be explored as part of Alternative C, such as designing the new pedestrian bridge in an alignment related to the shelf ecosystem instead of simply paralleling the Kutz Bridge.
Mr. Cook joined in expressing appreciation for the presentation, and he supported the proposal to remove most of the parking. He observed that the pedestrian bridge is illustrated with a simple line, but it presents a great opportunity to build a separate structure and not just something cantilevered off the Kutz Bridge. He said a new pedestrian bridge would likely become a very popular place, with people gathering there to take group photographs. Mr. Rubin reiterated that the Kutz Bridge’s existing narrow sidewalk, in close proximity to the vehicular lanes, is unpleasant for pedestrians; Mr. Cook agreed. Mr. Rubin said the idea for a floating pedestrian bridge in Alternative C is that it would respond to the fluctuation of the tides, so that people could experience this natural rhythm; the tidal cycle is very slow, but the fundamental notion of an always changing tide could make being on a floating bridge an exciting experience. He said the cantilevered version of the bridge also holds promise, and a separate bridge could also be a beautiful piece of engineering. He noted that the Kutz Bridge is slated for rehabilitation in the near future, and the intent is to take advantage of this opportunity for implementing a new solution if possible.
Chair Tsien said the proposals for the protection of the Jefferson Memorial are all excellent, and removing the existing necklace of barriers would clearly be beneficial. She summarized that the Commission strongly supports the effort to develop this master plan for the Tidal Basin cultural landscape and is pleased to provide these comments. Secretary Luebke said that a motion is not needed for providing comments on the master plan, and he noted that Mr. Lenihan had been recused from this review. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
2. CFA 20/FEB/25-2, Anacostia Park, Southeast Washington. Master plan for revitalization of Sections D & E (11th Street Bridge Park to Anacostia Railroad Bridge). Information presentation.
Secretary Luebke introduced the presentation on revitalizing sections of Anacostia Park, located in Southeast Washington. He said the National Park Service (NPS) has spent several years developing broad concepts as part of the park’s management plan, which was released in 2017; of the park’s five sections, the plan selected Sections D and E as the locations for the initial improvements because of their proximity to the planned 11th Street Bridge Park, an ongoing project adjacent to the Washington Navy Yard. Sections D and E include several existing recreational facilities, including playing fields, basketball courts, playgrounds, an outdoor swimming pool and pool house, and a large covered outdoor skating pavilion. The park’s main road, Anacostia Drive, runs near the water’s edge; the adjacent multiuse Riverwalk Trail connects to the different neighborhoods along the Anacostia River.
Mr. Luebke said the Anacostia River was used for shipping in the eighteenth century, with developments including the nearby Washington Navy Yard and the upstream port of Bladensburg, Maryland. However, the rapid expansion of farming led to excessive silting of the river and its eventual disuse for the large-scale transportation of goods. The development of Anacostia Park began in the early twentieth century as the federal government sought to reclaim the existing swamplands, eventually creating this 1,200-acre park. Recreational facilities were added to the park over the years, but not in recent decades. The vision for the area outlined in this master plan would accomplish several goals: expanding land- and water-based recreation; improving river ecology; consolidating infrastructure; supporting sports; and enhancing public access to the river.
Mr. Luebke said the presentation includes three concept alternatives; all three have some similarities, and they have been developed with considerable community input. He said the main issue has focused on the alignment of Anacostia Drive: the first alternative would keep it at approximately its current location along the river; the second alternative would move it as far away from the river as possible; and in the third it would meander somewhat back and forth, sometimes coming close to the river. All three alternatives retain the existing recreational facilities and provide additional amenities. He asked Tammy Stidham, the associate regional director for lands and planning at the National Capital Region of the NPS, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Stidham described the design work as having many moving pieces; it is still a master plan and not yet a project. She said that for the last several years the NPS has been exploring these concepts with the local community, which has given many comments and suggestions. The NPS team will return with a single consolidated project that will likely include the best parts of all three alternatives. She introduced Michael Commisso, deputy superintendent for National Capital Parks–East, to continue the presentation.
Mr. Commisso indicated the location of sections D and E in the northern portion of Anacostia Park, extending between the 11th Street Bridge and the CSX railroad bridge. He said this development concept plan will provide a roadmap for the next ten years; its recommendations are intended to be consistent with the legislation for Anacostia Park and are based on the 2017 Anacostia Park Management Plan. Recreation facilities, focused on both land and water, would be expanded to meet the needs of the local neighborhoods, and the ecology of the river landscape would be improved. The plan would support both passive and active play, and it would provide and enhance public access to the Anacostia River. The plan would also be rooted in an appreciation of the culture of the surrounding community and its desires for the future. He noted that implementation of the concepts would require additional compliance and funding.
Mr. Commisso said the vision statement, created with public consultation, reimagines Anacostia Park as a welcoming place that will inspire a wide range of users, providing opportunities to connect with other people and engage with the river. The vision statement recognizes the park’s national significance for its natural, cultural, and recreational resources; the park should be resilient, safe, and well-maintained, with strong connections to its communities, partners, and the river’s ecosystem. Park users should feel a sense of belonging here—valuing the park, engaging in its programming, and acting as stewards of its future.
Mr. Commisso said the vision statement was used to create goals that have been carried through in each of the three alternatives. The first goal is access and connectivity, improving the safety, accessibility, and direct connections between the project area and the neighboring communities through several means: activation of the waterfront; enhancement of the visitor experience along the river; and celebration of the site’s history, ecology, and restoration. Another goal is active recreation, by restoring and improving the area’s recreational fields to accommodate organized sports amenities; in addition, the extent and quality of passive recreational opportunities would be increased through a focus on social, cultural, and community gathering spaces and events.
Mr. Commisso listed numerous issues that would be addressed in all three alternatives: deferred maintenance; the addition of restrooms and drinking fountains; improvements to the tree canopy in the buffer between the park and the adjacent highway; improvements to the sports fields and courts; retention of the existing playground areas; and the addition of more equipment and seating. He said the project team is considering how to naturalize the shoreline and restore the seawall where feasible, noting that the seawall is in poor condition throughout this area of the river. An additional issue is managing the rising sea level through enhanced wetlands and green stormwater infrastructure. He said the public meetings have provided valuable input on improving access to the river, including dedicated fishing areas and improved boat launches. He added that other potential improvements under consideration include providing new gateways to and within the park; increasing overflow parking; improving trail connections, such as by connecting to the CSX Bridge and Fort Dupont Park; and adding public art.
Christine Bruins, a planning manager with the NPS regional office, described the three planning alternatives in detail. Concept 1, focused on the existing resources, would enhance the park’s three main activity nodes: the areas around the swimming pool, the skating pavilion, and the playground in the middle of the park. This concept includes rehabilitating the park’s current infrastructure and adding new amenities where the infrastructure supports it, such as creating a multiuse waterfront area on the existing historic seawall in front of the pool and recreation center, with a new outdoor classroom area nearby. This option would retain the existing alignment of Anacostia Drive and the Anacostia River Trail, and the river shoreline would be naturalized in limited areas. One of the sports fields would be converted into a picnic grove with pavilions, volleyball courts, and areas for a variety of games. A large picnic pavilion with a new additional restroom is shown at the park’s north end. Vehicular parking in front of the skating pavilion would be reconfigured and reprogrammed, with a new event lawn and covered pavilion.
Ms. Bruins said Concept 2, focused on resilience, would emphasize the park’s natural hydrology and allow for part of the park to flood as a water management strategy. This alternative would retain many recreational features in similar locations; key facilities and infrastructure such as new recreational fields and picnic areas would be located on higher ground; where possible, to protect it from flooding. Alternative 2, as with the first alternative, includes a multipurpose waterfront area aligned with the pool. An event lawn would be located between the recreation center and the river, and a beach area would be near the pool. Anacostia Drive would be realigned behind the sports fields, and the river trail would remain near the water’s edge. She said Concept 2 includes the longest extent of naturalized shoreline. In addition, the Pope Branch stream would be daylighted and its edges would be naturalized; a new connection with Fort Dupont Park would be created along the stream. As in Alternative 1, a picnic grove would be placed near the skating pavilion; at the north end a new picnic pavilion, with a restroom and small parking area, would be created.
Ms. Bruins said Concept 3 focuses on maximizing recreational amenities. It would emphasize water access and adding development between the neighboring communities and the river’s edge. The concept would feature a pedestrian promenade around the recreation center and pool area; a large waterfront plaza would be aligned with the skating pavilion, the event lawn, and a beach area. Courts for different sports would be built on the waterfront, which would also feature additional picnic areas. Anacostia Drive would be realigned between the river and sports fields, passing behind the skating pavilion, while the trail would remain along the river. She said Alternative 3 includes a moderate extent of naturalized shoreline; it also includes the daylighting of the Pope Branch stream, with an outdoor classroom area situated between the stream and the education center. A trail behind the waterfront amenities would include connections along the stream to the neighborhoods and Fort Dupont Park.
Ms. Bruins noted that the public has been invited to comment on the alternatives, including opinions on how bicycles, pedestrians, and cars should move through this area; on the alternatives for Anacostia Drive and whether it should be widened; and whether the trail should be widened or divided to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists.
Chair Tsien thanked the project team for the information presentation on the issues that would be addressed in the forthcoming master plan, and she invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Ms. Delplace commented that the Anacostia River is a lovely and undervalued area, one of the largest swaths of open space in Washington. She recommended keeping it free of vehicles to the extent possible, particularly because of the presence of the nearby highway; instead of vehicular traffic, the river’s edge should feature nodes that give people access to the water. She said this project provides the opportunity to rethink how pedestrians move through this space and how to create broader connections to either side of the park; she emphasized the importance of keeping the riverfront free of barriers to pedestrians and cyclists. Noting that the Anacostia River is tidal, she questioned the feasibility of creating beaches along the riverfront because the strong currents may make swimming in the river unsafe.
Mr. Moore expressed appreciation for this early engagement with the design issues. He agreed with Ms. Delplace that moving the roadway as far upland and inland as possible is desirable; an additional benefit is to keep emergency vehicle access out of the floodplain. He supported the idea of daylighting Pope Branch, shown in two of the alternatives; he said the community engagement provides wonderful opportunities for the project team to talk with neighborhood residents about the types of green spaces and experiences that might result from the daylighting. He agreed that the condition along the water’s edge will require a lot of conversation, care, and thought about the long-term maintenance of what gets built, such as a pier. He suggested consideration of a 100-year time horizon that recognizes which components would have to be rebuilt more frequently; the issues include the programming and use of the park as well as what is built. He summarized his support for the rethinking of this space, and he thanked the project team for its work.
Secretary Luebke said these comments will be summarized and sent to the NPS; the staff will continue to consult with the project team as a preferred alternative is developed. Chair Tsien thanked the team for its presentation and said the Commission looks forward to future review of a master plan that unites all of these ideas. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
C. D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
CFA 20/FEB/25-3, Capital One Arena, 601 F Street, NW. Renovations and additions to existing facility. Information presentation.
Secretary Luebke introduced the presentation on the planned renovation of the Capital One Arena, which was recently purchased by the D.C. Government. He said the arena was originally completed in 1997 as the MCI Center, and it represented a major public and private reinvestment in downtown Washington. It is located on the edge of Chinatown and is adjacent to two National Historic Landmark buildings from the early- to mid-19th century: the General Post Office, now the Hotel Monaco, and the Patent Office, now the Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery. The arena was designed by a partnership of Ellerbe Becket, Devrouax & Purnell, and Keyes Condon Florance, now SmithGroup. The design, intended to be both monumental and contextual, is composed of two distinct parts: a southern headhouse along F Street, which contains offices, retail at the base, and the major vertical circulation core; and the larger northern section, which contains the drum-shaped arena. The F Street facade is divided into three parts: a recessed center pavilion, a multistory canopy, and a marquee at the main entrance. The other main facade, on 7th Street, is characterized by a multistory glazed opening, above which the drum of the arena is visible. The northern facade is adjacent to and partially enclosed by the Gallery Place shopping center. The frontage along 6th Street is the service side and has the lowest amount of foot traffic. The most prominent corner is at 7th and F Streets, which contains an entrance to the Gallery Place–Chinatown Metrorail station.
Mr. Luebke said the project arrives nearly three decades after the arena first transformed this section of the city into a lively entertainment district, which the local government has been working to reestablish following the severe impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. The facility reportedly needs significant interior and exterior upgrades to meet modern standards and expectations for major sports, entertainment, and cultural events. The alterations would be completed in six phases, scheduled to conclude in 2028. The primary architectural goal is to give the facility a more unified character. All facades would be reclad with gray brick and metal panels; the extent of glazing would generally be reduced, with the remaining sections receiving new ultra-clear glass. At the street level, the mid-block entrance on F Street would be shifted to the west, and the entrance on the north would be enlarged. Entrances on the east and west sides would be redesigned to be more prominent and accessible, particularly on 6th Street, which slopes significantly down toward the north. Most of the remaining street-facing retail would be reoriented to be accessed from the interior. He said the most emphatic new building element would be an undulating addition wrapping the top of the building that would be composed of white ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) plastic panels. He said that while the building wrap, or “veil,” would be a very exuberant element, the rest of the building would be a more neutral box. A significant program of lighting and several video display boards are also planned for the facades. He asked Leah Riley, Director of Downtown Innovation at the D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Riley said the project is rooted in the L’Enfant plan, which envisioned the block to the west being set aside for an important public building intended to be the “heart” of the city. She said that while the important public building was ultimately constructed as the Patent Office, the public space around it has yet to be fully realized. She described the neighborhood as having a solid foundation for continued economic vitality, citing advantages such as its proximity to the National Mall, Union Station, the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, and the White House. She noted the annual visitorship of 7.5 million people to the surrounding areas, with vast potential to attract more. She said Chinatown’s unique cultural heritage and vibrant history also suggest the immense potential for more economic and social growth if thoughtful investments are made; the area can once again become a bustling area renowned for its culinary scene, markets, and shops, as well as being an entertainment hub.
Ms. Riley said the arena’s location across from the Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery complex means it will play an important role in highlighting this museum block and defining its eastern edge with near-daily opportunities for vitality and economic activity. The plan developed by the Gallery Place/Chinatown Task Force—a group of public and private stakeholders tasked with re-envisioning the neighborhood—calls for creating a pedestrian-focused square around the museum block. In this plan, 7th, F, and G Streets would be made curbless to create a large, city-scaled piazza similar to Covent Garden in London. She said this would bring to life L’Enfant’s vision for a lushly planted urban plaza open to everyone and surrounded by active uses, providing an urban oasis.
Ms. Riley cited two other planning documents published by the D.C. Government that support the current vision: the Downtown D.C. Public Realm Plan and the Downtown Action Plan. The Public Realm Plan was led by the D.C. Office of Planning and presents a framework for four catalytic projects to help revitalize downtown—the I Street Greenway, the Connecticut Avenue Capital Promenade, the Vermont Avenue Connector, and the Gallery Place Festival Plaza. The Festival Plaza project would create a cultural center around the museum block through the consolidation of the public space between the Capital One Arena and the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. She emphasized the opportunity to calm traffic, provide a green oasis, and create a magnet for public life.
Ms. Riley said the Action Plan, led by the Downtown D.C. and Golden Triangle Business Improvement Districts, outlines an economic development strategy for key demographic and neighborhood nodes. Among its goals are increasing visitation to drive foot traffic, vibrancy, and tax revenue. The redevelopment of the arena, including its interior- and exterior-facing amenities, is projected to increase visitation and revitalize the economy; an economic impact analysis projects that the arena’s redevelopment will generate an additional $40 million annually in tax revenue and could help fill persistently vacant retail spaces in the area. She concluded that retaining the arena in this location and having the tenant sports teams remain in the city presents a great entertainment possibility. She introduced architects Jordan Goldstein and Andrew Jacobs of Gensler to present the project.
Mr. Goldstein said the existing arena is composed of several masses that break down the scale of the facility; the building also has projections at the pedestrian scale and larger-scale elements on the upper facades, mostly signage and video screens. The multistory entrance feature and canopy along F Street was intended to echo the F Street portico of the historic Patent Office building. He said circulation around and into the facility is problematic, citing the alley condition on the north side of the arena; the pedestrian experience along 7th Street; and at 6th Street, where the ground plane is divided to accommodate the downward-sloping street while still providing access to the main level of the arena. Upon reaching the main entrance at F Street, one is immediately presented with the large vertical circulation core, which results in queuing that extends out onto the sidewalk. Similarly, on the northern side the arena entry is from an atrium that is focused more on the retail space of the Gallery Place complex. He noted that the arena’s tinted glazing makes the interior dark and obscures views into and out of the building.
Mr. Goldstein then presented the envisioned exterior alterations. He said the goal is to improve both the circulation and architecture through simplifying the facades and making the building accessible on all four sides. The translucent ETFE plastic veil, which would serve as an additional unifying element, was inspired by the atrium enclosure of the museum block and other similar architectural elements in Washington. The building would be reclad with gray brick and metal panels, interspersed with glazed areas of ultra-clear vision glass. The new main entrance on F Street would be located closer to the corner of 7th Street and would feature glazing instead of the existing multistory canopy element; the new location would provide easier access between the arena and the Metro entrance at the 7th Street corner. The new glazing would also be used at the corner of 6th and F Streets, with access to a multi-level lounge space. At the G Street alley on the north, the entrance into the Gallery Place atrium would be moved closer to the street, and the new veil would turn the corner to provide cover for pedestrians. The west-facing digital signboard near this area would be aligned with G Street to create an outdoor gathering area for celebrating arena and sports team events.
Mr. Jacobs said the plastic veil would rise to “peel away” from the building at the southwest entrance, creating a grand pavilion entry and providing cover for queueing. On 6th Street, the arena entrance would be reconfigured to be accessible directly from the sidewalk, providing barrier-free access and encouraging additional foot traffic on the relatively quiet street. He concluded by presenting the project’s lighting strategies. He said the current lighting does not celebrate specific events at the arena, and the intent is that the new lighting will play a role in the entertainment program for the building. The veil would be lit with flowing lights that would be synchronized with what is being shown on the video screens. He cited other buildings that have colored lights on their facades, including the Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany, the Kennedy Center, and the museum block across 7th Street, which he said frequently uses colored lighting to celebrate cultural events or artworks.
Chair Tsien asked Secretary Luebke to read the comment letter sent to the Commission by Carol Aten on behalf of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City. Reading Ms. Aten’s letter, Mr. Luebke said that the decision of Abe Pollin, the previous owner of the arena and its tenant professional sports teams, to locate a sports arena in downtown Washington was a prescient move that jumpstarted and enlivened a moribund section of the city. This in turn encouraged the development of a culinary and arts hub characterized by new venues for the Shakespeare Theatre Company and restaurants by the well-known chef José Andrés; the Hotel Monaco was also opened in the General Post Office building, and significant investments were made in the museum block and the central library. Ms. Aten says the Committee of 100 is grateful that the sports teams have decided to remain in the city, and the renovation of the arena presents several challenges as well as opportunities.
In her letter, Ms. Aten continues that the goals of the redesign include visually transforming the arena into a dynamic and monumental gathering location; honoring its role as an essential meeting space in the District; providing a catalyst for future investments; creating more harmony between the arena and its urban context; and enriching the community’s connection to public space. She notes that the recent government purchase of the arena makes it even more important to get the project right, as the facility will belong to the people for generations. She asks how the arena can be engaging to the public beyond a closed, ticketed game or performance, which she says is one of the keys to meeting the contextual goals as well as the task force goals. She writes that the design intent must be achieved through a balance of specific goals, including establishing a dynamic gathering place; celebrating the building’s identity as an arena; facilitating entry points to welcome users and make meaningful connections to the surrounding fabric; acknowledging the arena’s scale, as opposed to the current facade’s conglomeration of discrete masses; and creating a people-oriented sense of place. She writes that the primary means to achieve these goals is presented as an amorphous, flowing canopy wrapping much of the building, with an emphasis on transparency, particularly at various monumental glazed sections.
Ms. Aten writes that the Committee of 100 questions whether the currently presented design actually achieves these goals, as many of the elements seem quite inconsistent with the stated intent. For example, the nearby museum block’s courtyard roof is a very different element in a very different space for a very different purpose. She writes that the other two cited precedents—the National Institute of Peace and the National Museum of African American History and Culture—are more appropriate, as their architectural features are both functional and have intrinsic meanings, purposes, and identities related to their respective buildings. She writes that the bold move envisioned for wrapping the arena’s mass should be more intrinsically and recognizably related to its identity as an entertainment hub, rather than a tacked-on structure with no functional purpose, inherent meaning, or articulation of the building at street level. She questions if this wrapping would achieve the goal of creating a welcoming, people-oriented space connected to the urban fabric. She writes that the stated design goals, as well as the specific design elements such as the wrap’s innovative materiality, are themselves worthy of development but in a more disciplined matter. The Committee of 100 believes this early design can be intelligently rethought and developed, and recognizes that new, forward-thinking elements can coexist with and be respectful of historic contexts. The project will need design skill and critical thinking about how the building speaks to the public and relates to its context to develop an imaginative proposal that does not resort to stylistic stereotypes or formal imitations.
Mr. Luebke said the letter concludes that the design effort should be forward-thinking and serve as a catalyst to advance community goals; it should not be hasty but instead establish a more consistent and disciplined design process to achieve long-term goals. In the letter, Ms. Aten adds that the renderings suggest a setting with much more space around the building than what actually exists, and the potential amount of light pollution from the canopy and digital billboards is worrisome.
Chair Tsien thanked Secretary Luebke for reading the letter, and she invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook said he would like to focus his comments on the building’s wrap or veil. He said the cited precedents, which included the museum block’s courtyard and the exterior scrim of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, are successful because they can be seen and experienced from the inside. He asked if the arena would provide a comparable opportunity to experience the wrap while within the building. Mr. Goldstein said this could be achieved in certain locations, particularly along 7th Street and possibly at a few places along F Street, potentially by creating additional openings in the building to see the veil from interior spaces, such as lounges or club areas.
Chair Tsien observed that the precedents mentioned for the veil are coherent, singular forms, whereas the veil as presented appears draped and episodic. She also expressed concern regarding the solidity at the street level and the removal of neighborhood-oriented retail spaces. She cited the Hudson Yards development along 10th Avenue in New York: the development presents a stainless-steel wall with large glass lobbies along the avenue, but creates little foot traffic since the lobbies are only for building occupants. She said she is disturbed by the impact of Hudson Yards on 10th Avenue, which used to be a very vibrant street but is now a lifeless “wind tunnel.” She therefore questioned the D.C. Government’s desire to make the arena more solid; when events are not occurring the building will not be truly active, and lighting will not make it feel like an active space. She also questioned how removing all of the arena’s street-facing and neighborhood-focused retail would bring the area to life.
Mr. Becker expressed support for these comments and advised that the day-to-day life of the surrounding streets should not be compromised for singular arena events. He said the arena will certainly create economic activity, but this is only part of what defines urban vitality, and the proposal should have more balance.
Mr. Moore also agreed with the comments. He observed that the first part of the presentation, which focused on the civic role and pedestrian scale of the building, did not seem consistent with the changes described in the second part of the presentation. He said the plan for the public spaces and overall experience of the project should be informed by consultations with grassroots and community stakeholders, rather than the preferences of the arena owner and operator. He also recommended further consideration of the proportion, transparency, and scale of the building from the perspective of a pedestrian. Noting that the quality of the design is poor in this area, he suggested developing more variety and articulation at the lower twenty to thirty feet of the building—the space that significantly impacts how people experience the city. He said the design for the upper part of the building also needs work in order to reconcile the form of the building wrap with the rectangular video screens, and more generally to resolve the technology and lighting components of the program with the building form. He summarized that his primary concern is how the project would contribute to the active and vibrant civic spaces and experiences described in the first part of the presentation.
Chair Tsien said that the Commission’s comments on the information presentation will be transmitted to the project team. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
D. D.C. Department of Transportation
CFA 20/FEB/25-4, Arland D. Williams, Jr. Memorial Bridge (I-395 northbound roadway), between Virginia and the District of Columbia. Rehabilitation of vehicular bridge. Concept.
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
E. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 20/FEB/25-5, Correctional Treatment Facility Annex, 1900 Massachusetts Avenue, SE. New buildings and landscape. Concept. (Previous: CFA 21/NOV/24-4)
Secretary Luebke introduced a second concept submission for a new correctional treatment facility annex to replace the existing central detention facility, commonly known as the D.C. Jail; the project is submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Department of Corrections. He said that in its November 2024 meeting, the Commission members supported the general planning and massing of the project but did not take an action, expressing concern about the character, materials, and detailing of the architecture and site design. They had commended the project goals of creating a meaningful community connection and incorporating evolving approaches to criminal justice, with recognition that the facility will carry significant symbolic meaning, but had expressed concern that the design character may appear menacing. They recommended that the facility more deliberately express its humanity as a place of care, which should include: studying an alternative material for the scrim, in lieu of Cor-ten steel; eliminating the non-functional upper extensions of the supporting columns, which appear spear-like; and maximizing the vision glass at upper floors where the residents live. They also recommended simplifying the proposed landscape along Massachusetts Avenue with a more continuous and calm treatment.
Mr. Luebke said the project team has returned with several revisions that include: changing the material and design of the scrim that encloses the building; changing the penthouse material; revising the canopies; further defining the different types of exterior glass; and simplifying the planter geometry along Massachusetts Avenue to be more rectilinear. He asked Thomas Faust, director of the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC), to begin the presentation.
Mr. Faust thanked the Commission and noted that the updated design for the D.C. Jail annex continues to realize Mayor Bowser’s vision for a project that incorporates contemporary correctional facility goals, focused on the treatment and rehabilitation of its residents. He said the DOC operates and maintains the current facility, totaling nearly one million square feet, which houses pretrial offenders, people serving misdemeanor sentences, and convicted felons awaiting transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He emphasized the importance of designing the future space to respond to the programming, treatment, and reentry needs of its residential population, providing secure and resilient facilities that provide for rehabilitation. Upon completion of the annex project, the DOC will have a singular unified correctional complex with frontage on Massachusetts Avenue that serves the city and the needs of the DOC residents, and that fits into the surrounding community area appropriately. He introduced Dean Hutchison of CORE Architecture to present the updated design that responds to the Commission’s previous comments as well as community input.
Mr. Hutchison said the broad purpose of the project is to create a correctional facility within an urban setting that engages with the connecting fabric of the emerging Hill East neighborhood. The proposal includes a lively streetscape and an accessible entrance while simultaneously trying to blur the scale and function of the building—allowing it to be present within an urban setting, but not to make a loud statement.
Mr. Hutchison described the changes in the updated design, intended to respond to the Commission’s advice. The height of the external columns has been lowered to not extend higher than the scrim. The scrim itself has been refined to be more lacy and transparent, and it has been pulled farther away from the main facade; the scrim’s material has also been changed from Cor-ten steel to painted aluminum that would be a blend of warm tones. The streetscape design has also been simplified by creating more rectilinear areas. Several additional renderings have been provided to illustrate the building under various lighting conditions and to show the interior lighting.
Mr. Hutchison presented the landscape revisions in greater detail, explaining the existing topographic change along the street frontage. The amount of plantings and the number of benches have been reduced, more low-maintenance native species of low-growing plants have been included, and more rectilinear design elements have been added. He said the main entrance along Massachusetts Avenue would be given a welcoming character by including a canopy, signage, and a change in the sidewalk pattern. The landscape character would differ in front of the two annex buildings, one of which has more administrative functions. He indicated the doorway along Massachusetts Avenue where residents would be released from the facility to return back into society.
Mr. Hutchison emphasized the biophilic nature of the scrim, which would come down to connect with the landscape. The scrim design has been revised to make it visually less dense, becoming a more transparent element in front of the window wall system. The proposed exterior materials include four colors of panels for the scrim and four types of glazing: vision, translucent, opaque, and glass with an organic frit pattern. The vision glass would be used for the administration areas of the building, and the residential spaces would have fritted glass. He said the design intent is to use the scrim and glazing types to achieve different shadows and texture on the walls while allowing various levels of visibility into and out of the building. Finally, he described the scrim’s support system of a powder-coated metal structural frame; the vertical members of the frame would be thicker, providing a rhythm for the facade.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Moore requested clarification on the redesigned scrim, which was presented as being less dense than the previous version; he asked if the combination of the scrim and fritted glass would obscure the view outside for residents. Mr. Hutchison confirmed that these two elements would not obscure each other, allowing for views outside. Mr. Moore also asked if the project team has studied oblique and elevational views to the outside to understand this issue. Mr. Hutchison said the exploration was primarily in elevational views, but the scrim’s openings would probably result in outward views being only partially obscured; he said the intent is to admit as much light in as possible and to provide some views to the outside. Mr. Moore asked if the percentage of opacity of the frit has been determined; Mr. Hutchison said the glazing details are still being developed, but currently the frit density is designed as graduating from approximately thirty percent at the bottom of the panel to sixty percent at the top.
Mr. Moore reiterated his concern from the previous review that the exterior expression and articulation of the building has a responsibility to reflect a healing, rehabilitating quality of the environment for the residents inside. He said the scrim, though well-intentioned, may be creating an undesirable condition for the people confined within the building; he also cautioned that the fritted glass, while a very interesting design tool, may end up inadvertently creating a punitive experience and space for the residents.
Mr. Becker suggested that either the scrim or the frit alone might be sufficient to achieve the design goals. Mr. Hutchison said the idea for the scrim is to make the building more of an integral part of the neighborhood, and the scrim would work in combination with the fritted glass to allow this project to blend into the community. He reiterated that the program includes both residential and office spaces, and the exterior design is intended to help blur the distinction between these differing programmatic components.
Mr. Becker requested more information on what type of development would be in the vicinity of the new detention facility, in order to better understand the character of the community space along this stretch of Massachusetts Avenue and who would be using it. Mr. Hutchison said that Massachusetts Avenue has one of the wide rights-of-way that are part of the L’Enfant plan. The Hill East neighborhood is a master-planned community, but its redevelopment is still at an early stage; as the neighborhood grows, Massachusetts Avenue will likely become a more prominent feature. At the avenue’s eastern terminus overlooking the Anacostia River, the master plan identifies a monumental sculpture that would become an integral part of the neighborhood.
Ms. Tsien said the revised proposal appears to be responsive to the Commission’s previous comments, and she described the changes as positive. She recalled that the previous proposal was more visually solid and projected strength, while the current proposal has a more delicate approach in using a similar architectural language. Mr. Cook said he agrees that the revised proposal is responsive, but further refinements are needed; in particular, he questioned the necessity and function of the many horizontal canopies that appear to be randomly scattered across the facades. Mr. Hutchison responded that these canopies are biophilic design elements intended to demonstrate how nature can be expressed on the facade—in particular, to show how water might move down the scrim similar to a waterfall over rocks. Mr. Cook suggested further exploration of facade refinements to understand whether these elements are proposed in the optimal quantity, location, and depth.
Mr. Cook asked about the width of the proposed sidewalk in the landscape, observing that it appears to narrow considerably in some locations, perhaps for security or another reason. Mr. Hutchison said the sidewalks are approximately ten feet wide at the narrowest point, as called for in the Hill East master plan.
Mr. Delplace said she welcomes the revised proposal for a simplified landscape along Massachusetts Avenue, but she recommended further development and simplification. She commented that some of the proposed selections included on the plant list should be reconsidered: the design should include species that are more appropriate to the biophilic building design, and some selections might be too large for this location. In particular, she noted that skip laurels, an evergreen shrub, need to be maintained as a hedge and not allowed to grow large, and the hydrangeas could become massive in this landscape at a scale that is not compatible with the pedestrian sidewalk.
Chair Tsien suggested a consensus to approve the concept submission with the comments provided. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission adopted this action; Mr. Moore abstained.
2. CFA 20/FEB/25-6, New York Avenue Shelter, 1201 New York Avenue, NE. New building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal for an emergency shelter building, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Department of Human Services (DHS). The location at 1201 New York Avenue is between the Ivy City and Union Market neighborhoods. The southern part of the site is steeply sloped, and the western part is a small forest conservation area; the only buildable area is to the northeast along the New York Avenue frontage. The proposal includes a residential shelter, a separate residential area for people in a work program, a welcome center for screening and intake, a medical facility, and three dining areas. The capacity is ordinarily 365 beds, with room for an additional 100 beds during extreme weather events. The design includes two residential wings of four and six stories, separated by an atrium; these would be connected by a ramp to the welcome center, which would be entered from Fairview Avenue on the east. He noted that direct access from New York Avenue is not permitted.
Mr. Luebke described the exterior as a stepped composition of stacked white cubic volumes with punched windows and terraces; its inspiration is drawn from the Art Deco style of the nearby Hecht Company warehouse on New York Avenue. The building is designed for net-zero energy consumption; features include green roofs, high-efficiency building systems, and geothermal wells beneath the parking lot. The site design includes walking and seating areas and bioretention. He asked project manager Dave Antoine of the D.C. Department of General Services to begin the presentation.
Mr. Antoine described the DHS’s role in providing residents with access to work opportunities, economic assistance, and supportive services; the mission includes providing homeless and homelessness prevention services, such as short-term family housing and emergency shelters. The DHS operations at this building will include an emergency shelter and wraparound services to support the residents. The shelter would support five programs: low-barrier housing; work program housing; senior housing; respite for the medically frail; and weather emergency housing. The project would allow for relocation and closure of an inadequate nearby facility, an emergency men’s shelter at 1355 New York Avenue, NE, that no longer provides a safe and comfortable environment for the residents. He said the project helps to fulfill the goals of Homeward D.C., the mayor’s initiative for addressing homelessness in the city; these goals have influenced the proposed design. He added that the project team has engaged in extensive outreach with the surrounding community, the DHS staff, and current DHS residents. He introduced Luke Giaccio of Sorg Architects to present the design.
Mr. Giaccio indicated the site and context with New York Avenue to the north, Fairview Avenue to the east, and a bypass spur of Mt. Olivet Road to the west; he noted that an additional part of the site extends west of the bypass, but this area is not part of the proposed development. Adjacent to the south are warehouses used for storage of rental bicycles, and there are townhouses farther south facing Mt. Olivet Road and Gallaudet University; he also indicated the nearby railway corridor on the north side of New York Avenue. An existing animal shelter on the site would be removed. The proposed massing is configured to partially define an open courtyard along New York Avenue that would accommodate the preservation of an existing heritage tree; the project is also designed to minimize impacts on the steep slope and forest conservation area to the west. He noted that the zoning for the site is being considered as part of a Planned Unit Development application.
Mr. Giaccio presented an aerial view of the neighborhood, indicating the combination of rotated grids and radial streets that developed historically; he said these patterns have influenced the proposed orientation of the building wings. An existing curb cut along New York Avenue would be eliminated; another existing curb cut along Fairview Avenue would remain to provide vehicular access to the site, which would include parking. He introduced DHS manager Lisa Franklin to continue the presentation.
Ms. Franklin elaborated on the client goals for the project. She said that residents need to move around in the shelter buildings, and elevator reliability can be a concern; a relatively low building height is therefore preferred. The building should also be dignified, with a residential character that fits in with the community. The welcome center is a desirable feature, allowing people to come inside when arriving for the intake process instead of having to wait outdoors; she said this will be especially beneficial in inclement weather. She said locating the entrance on a side street is greatly preferable to entering from busy New York Avenue, which would create safety problems as residents arrive and depart or queue outdoors.
Ms. Franklin said the long-term goal is for smaller facilities with fewer beds, but the current scope of the homelessness problem necessitates a larger complex; the design goal is therefore to make this 365-bed shelter feel much smaller. Organizing the residential space into groupings of nine to ten beds, with a maximum of fifty beds per floor, would cultivate a community where residents would get to know each other and would help the staff in managing the facility. This shelter’s capacity for adding additional beds during very cold weather will allow for reducing the reliance on using the city’s recreation centers for this purpose; she noted that the D.C. Government has a legislated mandate to accommodate anyone requesting shelter during the winter months.
Ms. Franklin said ample outdoor space is another desirable feature, helping to keep residents on the property. Sufficient parking is necessary for the round-the-clock staff; the residents typically do not have cars. Separate entrances are desirable for the low-barrier shelter and the work program; she noted that residents in the work program have fewer restrictions than those in the low-barrier shelter.
Mr. Giaccio presented the proposed massing and the disposition of program elements. He said the separation of the building into two angled wings would result in a less institutional appearance while accommodating the heritage tree; the site plan also provides for additional outdoor recreation space as well as an expansion of the forest conservation area. The four-story western wing would have the work program housing, the medical clinic, and the programs for seniors and the medically frail. The six-story eastern wing would have the low-barrier shelter along with related client services, administrative functions, and a dining area. He indicated the atrium that would connect the two wings; this connection would be beneficial in reducing the impact of potential elevator maintenance issues. He said the stepped massing would create outdoor terraces on each floor; he presented an aerial perspective of the massing in the context of potential future development that is contemplated with the neighborhood’s current zoning. The two wings and the welcome center to the east would have green roofs and would be able to accommodate solar panels.
Landscape architect Bruno Carvalho of Carvalho & Good presented the site design in greater detail. He said the focus is on the community and creating a residential character on this very constrained site. One key area is at the front entrance, where a stair and sloped walk would bring people up gradually to the entrance patio. The open courtyard on the north is another key area; he emphasized the intention to save the heritage tree at this courtyard, with a pleasing open space around it including a deck and robust plantings. The third key area is at the western entrance, where a small plaza would be provided. He said site security is a concern, and the appropriate selection of fencing is still being considered. Lighting of the site’s interior and perimeter is being designed for both aesthetics and security. The plantings would conform to the D.C. Government’s guidelines for native species and bioretention design, with a variety of plants that would give year-round aesthetic interest.
Mr. Giaccio continued with the presentation of the architecture and massing. He said the building height would be just over 83 feet for the eastern wing and 61 feet for the western wing. He presented views from New York Avenue and Fairview Avenue, indicating the visual interest created by the stepped terraces. The glass-enclosed walkway from the welcome center to the eastern wing would provide views of the plantings and a retention pond. The interiors would use artwork and color to create a residential rather than institutional character. The exterior material would be an elongated white brick; the atrium glazing may have a frit pattern; frames for the punched-window openings would be aluminum with a wood finish. He emphasized the environmental features of the project, including careful design of an airtight building envelope in coordination with an envelope consultant. He concluded with photo montages of the streetscape view extending many blocks to the east and west, illustrating the existing and planned development in the area.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Acknowledging the challenges of the site and program, Mr. Lenihan commended the design team for creating an elegant proposal that captures the functional requirements and brings dignity to the people who will use the building. Mr. Becker agreed, describing the project as extraordinarily beautiful and well conceived; he cited the sustainability features as well as the overall architecture and landscape design.
Ms. Delplace asked how people will reach the site; she observed that the area is currently somewhat remote and industrial in character. Ms. Franklin said some people would reach the site as pedestrians, and the nearest Metro station is not far away. She noted the DHS contract with a transportation service company that responds to people who call a hotline to request access to a shelter; transportation is provided to whichever shelter has an open bed. Ms. Delplace emphasized that transportation and the arrival experience are important components of the valuable service provided by this facility; the consideration should extend to an understanding of where people are coming from and how they would reach this part of the city, in comparison to the downtown locations where services had been provided in the past.
Mr. Cook agreed, commenting that the perspective view of the welcome center raises concern about the desirability of a more gracious entry. He acknowledged the many requirements and constraints, including the security issue that was discussed, but he suggested designing the entrance to be more dignified and welcoming. Ms. Franklin noted that the welcome center is a new feature for the DHS facilities; she acknowledged that it has a stark appearance, and she said its design is still being evaluated by the staff that manages the shelters. She said that past facilities have typically had people enter directly from the street to go through metal detectors, but the intent here is to create a more welcoming character. She acknowledged that the development of the welcome center’s design is ongoing, including consideration of its programmatic purpose beyond providing queuing space and a hot cup of coffee. Mr. Cook emphasized his overall support for the project and for the inclusion of the welcome center as a new part of the shelter programming. He suggested improving the entrance by adding some plantings or reducing the size of the canopy, which makes the entrance seem dark.
Mr. Moore expressed appreciation for the presentation and commended the project’s program and design. He asked for clarification of the design for the terraces, acknowledging that some type of enclosure is understandable, but the combination of a glass wall and a railing seems questionable. Mr. Giaccio said the client has requested a secondary form of protection to avoid having residents be directly in contact with the glass. Mr. Moore observed that the railings would provide an undesirable opportunity for climbing, and the presence of the railings therefore seems counterintuitive. He also observed that the terraces are illustrated with outdoor furniture, and the railings would reduce the amount of space available for seating. Mr. Giaccio offered to consider this issue further, and Mr. Moore emphasized his support for the wonderful design.
Chair Tsien joined in expressing support for the project, citing its massing and design as well as the effort to make the spaces feel more humane. She encouraged the inclusion of private outdoor space, commenting that the frit pattern would ideally be designed to allow people to see outward but provide them with some sense of privacy. She said the design is very promising at the concept level; she suggested a consensus to approve the submission with the comments provided and perhaps delegate further review to the staff. Mr. Becker said the design seems sufficiently well developed that additional review by the Commission is not needed; Mr. Moore agreed, and the Commission approved the concept submission with this delegation.
(Chair Tsien departed at this point, and Vice Chair Edwards presided for the remainder of the meeting.)
3. CFA 20/FEB/25-7, John Burroughs Elementary School, 1820 Monroe Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal for the renovation of and additions to the John Burroughs Elementary School, located in the Brookland neighborhood of Northeast Washington; the project is submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS). He said the historic Collegiate Gothic-style building was constructed in the 1920s on a moderately sloping site. A large one-story wing was added in 1959, and a smaller kitchen and cafeteria addition was constructed in 2013. According to the project research, the original building configuration was based on a “West Coast” pedagogical model that called for internal windows between rooms, wide corridors, and courtyards for ample light and ventilation. The school is named for John Burroughs, the noted naturalist, essayist, and conservationist who lived in Washington while working for the Treasury Department in the 1860s and 1870s.
Mr. Luebke said the proposal includes demolishing the 1959 and 2013 additions and replacing them with a new two-story wing; enclosing the largest of the building’s three courtyards to create a central commons for both dining and STEM-focused learning; and relocating the main entrance from the south side to the north side of the original school building. The proposed two-story wing on the west would be splayed in plan and is intended to be a contemporary interpretation of the school’s historic architecture; it would house classrooms for the elementary school students and a new child development center, which would have its own entrance. The school’s historic main entrance on the south would be retained but used as a secondary entrance and for ceremonial functions. A new main entrance would be created on the north, adding a wide archway at the ground level to accommodate the required barrier-free access. The proposed material palette is brick, limestone, aluminum accent panels, a standing-seam metal roof, and a mass timber structure enclosing the courtyard. Landscape improvements include planted areas in the north at the new semicircular entrance area; bioretention for stormwater management; and enclosed, age-specific playgrounds west of the new wing.
Mr. Luebke asked Patrick Moloney, project manager for the D.C. Department of General Services, to begin the presentation. Mr. Moloney said representatives from the client agency and the general contractor are available to answer questions, and he introduced architect Chris Ambridge of Quinn Evans to present the design.
Mr. Ambridge said this unique school, based on the West Coast pedagogical method, was the most costly eight-room school in the city upon its completion in 1921, and consequently no others like it were built. He described the context as predominantly two-story houses; the school occupies an entire block between Monroe, Newton, 18th, and 20th Streets. The open playing field to the east would be the location for the modular campus serving as swing space during the modernization project. He presented historical photographs of the building, indicating its distinctive three-gabled facades and its main entrance on the central axis. The classrooms have high ventilation windows into the corridor, which was considered to be a California-style feature. He noted that naming the school after John Burroughs was declared a fitting and appropriate tribute to him as the surrounding landscape was quite naturalistic when the school was first built.
Mr. Ambridge presented current images of the school’s exterior and of the two small courtyards flanking the central gymnasium that serve only as lightwells. A larger courtyard was created when the northern block was added to the original building in 1927. He said the distinctive three-gabled symmetrical facades on the north and the south facades express the parallel classroom bars, and he noted the upper-level stone oriel window in the central gable on the north side. Other character-defining elements of the historic school include a continuous limestone water table and a brick course at the windows. He said Monroe Street is an east–west artery with heavy traffic and presents significant safety issues, resulting in the proposal to establish an enlarged northern entrance on quieter Newton Street as the school’s new main entrance. The new entrance would have a limestone surround, compatible with but not identical to the historic limestone detailing. He noted that the natural grade falls from south to north, and the existing western additions are located at the half-level between the two floors of the original school block, resulting in significant accessibility issues.
Mr. Ambridge said the existing courtyards are underutilized and provide an opportunity to create new program space. The selected design approach has five components: make the new school a STEM incubator; create learning landscapes; create a new central gathering space as the “heart” of the school; develop a connection to nature by maximizing a sense of connection to the outdoors; and meet or exceed the sustainability goals set by the D.C. Government.
Mr. Ambridge said the school’s new communal spaces would be placed along the central north–south axis established by the building entrances; these spaces include the gymnasium, cafeteria, and library. Conceptually, the new addition to the west could be considered a third academic bar that would be inflected to embrace the outdoor space and create new courtyard spaces between the addition and the existing building. He presented a plan illustrating the proposed indoor and outdoor spaces and the circulation between them. After entering the school via the new entrance plaza on the north, one would move into the large courtyard, which would be enclosed with a skylight and would become the school’s central gathering space. The two small courtyards would remain open-air but would have access from the school’s interior to be available for use.
Mr. Ambrose indicated the two-level east–west circulation spine that traverses the entire project, connecting the historic school and the new addition. The eastern end of the spine would eventually provide access to the playing fields that would be restored following the dismantling of the modular school campus; the western end of the spine would lead to the landscape along 18th Street, which has an existing grove of trees and would serve as the school’s primary outdoor space. Between the existing school and the addition, the spine would partially define angled courtyard spaces to the north and south; the southern courtyard would serve as the entrance to the child development center. He said the concept design for the new addition is intended to reflect the gables of the historic school; the fenestration would also follow the existing datum lines. The proposed material is an elongated brick intended to match the general color and tonal value of the existing brick. A standing-seam metal roof with solar panels would be dark to match the dark color of the historic slate roofs.
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Moore asked if DCPS has studied possible scenarios for future expansion of the school, commenting that the splayed configuration of the new addition and the landscape plan may not allow for future additions on the west side of the site. He cited previous school projects reviewed by the Commission comprising several piecemeal additions and that suffered from a lack of long-term planning. Project manager Melissa Pegram from DCPS responded that her office is working with the design team to “future-proof” the addition to account for varying conditions. Mr. Moore encouraged the project team to take another look at the site plan to consider the potential for future additions; he observed that the recent addition from 2013 is already being proposed for demolition, which is an unsustainable approach and poor use of resources. Joe Cellucci, an architect with Quinn Evans, expressed appreciation for Mr. Moore’s comments; he said the field to the east could accommodate a future permanent addition, although retaining it as an open field would also be beneficial for the school and greater community. He added that symmetrical, “shoulder bag” additions at both sides of the school were considered, but the proposed approach of a single addition on the west was determined to allow the most flexibility for future additions.
Mr. Becker said the design is beautiful, and he asked if the pre-kindergarten students would have a fenced play area; Mr. Ambridge indicated the direct access from the grouping of pre-kindergarten classrooms to the fenced play area. Mr. Becker praised the proposed approach to sustainability, and he supported approval of the concept design.
Mr. Cook asked if the new brick cladding is intended to match the historic brick; Mr. Ambridge confirmed the intention is to closely match the existing brick, but the new brick would not attempt to replicate the historic brick’s broad variation in tonal range. Mr. Cook said this strategy may be appropriate because the old and new brick would not be seen directly next to one another, but he cautioned about the potential for a clashing appearance if the bricks are seen closely together and do not match. He encouraged further study of the brick to ensure that the old and new are appropriately compatible.
Vice Chair Edwards suggested a consensus to approve the concept. Secretary Luebke noted that the Commission’s questions seem to have been answered satisfactorily; he said the staff has participated in several consultation meetings, with specific areas of discussion including the treatment of the new main entrance and the character of the enclosed courtyard. He said the current proposal responds positively to the staff’s comments, and the design appears to be compatible with this significant historic building.
Mr. Lenihan agreed that the proposed design is successful; he offered a motion to approve the concept submission, with review of the final design delegated to the staff. Upon a second by Mr. Becker, the Commission adopted this action.
(At this point, Mr. Moore departed for the remainder of the meeting.)
4. CFA 20/FEB/25-8, Drew Elementary School, 5600 Eads Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
F. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
1. SL 25-021, The Portals I, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW. Renovations and additions to existing 8-story office building for residential use. Permit. (Previous: SL 24-166, September 2024)
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
2. SL 25-057, 450 5th Street, NW. Renovations and additions to existing 11-story office building for residential use. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal for the conversion of an existing office building at 450 5th Street to residential use. He noted that this building is not considered a contributing feature of any nearby historic district, but it is adjacent to two four-story contributing buildings at the south end of the block, including the Register of Deeds Building at 6th and C Streets, and it faces Judiciary Square and the U.S. Court of Appeals across 5th Street. The existing building, constructed in 1982, is composed of large horizontal volumes clad with precast concrete; these volumes are visually separated with deep recesses at the base of the building, at the ninth floor, and vertically on the north and south elevations. The relationship between solid and void is emphasized by the two-story volume at the top, with deeply inset punched windows and re-entrant corner details in the precast panels. The siting of 450 5th Street includes a substantial setback from 5th Street, in accordance with the 1960s planning for new buildings around Judiciary Square; other buildings from this era have similar setbacks, both to the north along 5th Street and on the eastern side of Judiciary Square along 4th Street. This planning effort has subsequently been abandoned, and development of these parcels again allows buildings to reach the property line.
Mr. Luebke said the proposed design is intended to respect the historic urban framework of Judiciary Square including heights, setbacks, and viewsheds; the intent is also to maintain the materiality and spirit of the existing building by preserving much of the existing facade. Parts of the building and facades along 5th and 6th Streets would be removed to provide shallower floorplate dimensions, and a series of courtyards would be introduced to provide light and air for the new layout of residential units. The proposal includes a new occupiable penthouse that would include residential units, an amenities space, and a pool. Additions to the building would typically be articulated in a bronze-colored system, contrasting with the original precast concrete that would provide prominence and a consistent massing for the building. All existing windows would be replaced, and many of the new windows would be operable. The proposal is intended to soften the building’s base while complementing the surrounding streetscape and park; at the ground level, a transition between the private and public spaces would be created by private residential terraces, guard walls, and paving. The main entrance would be a new one-story glass entrance vestibule facing 5th Street; several trellis structures are also proposed along the 5th Street sidewalk, intended to reinforce the pedestrian scale and relate to the massing and alignment of the adjacent buildings. He noted that the D.C. Historic Preservation Office has requested consideration of consolidating the trellises into pavilions that could support standalone retail, with the goal of introducing first-floor retail space as an urban amenity along 5th Street. He asked architect Megan Mitchell of Eric Colbert & Associates to present the proposal.
Ms. Mitchell said the project team includes The Georgetown Company as the developer and Lee & Associates as the landscape architect; she introduced John Marcolin of Lee & Associates to begin the presentation. Mr. Marcolin presented background and contextual information, including maps of the area’s historic districts and buildings, nearby points of interest, parks and green spaces, and previous nearby development proposals. He described the existing site, indicating several special trees with a circumference of at least 44 inches; he noted that the site’s trees are generally in good condition. Along 6th Street, the site slopes down significantly toward the south. Several types of paving are used on the site, including concrete pavers, concrete slabs, and brick.
Ms. Mitchell described the existing building on the site, which she characterized as a bulky building with a facade that provides a sense of depth. Its proportions—approximately 300 feet long and 115 feet wide—give it a squat appearance, and the width of the floorplate is not conducive to apartment layouts. Another concern is how the existing building meets the sky. She said the facade itself is rather beautiful, and after the precast panels are cleaned they could be used for another fifty years.
Ms. Mitchell presented the proposed design, describing how alterations to the existing massing would transform the floorplate into a configuration that is suitable for residential use while retaining as much as possible of the existing facades and massing. Three voids would be carved into the eastern part of the building, resulting in four narrower wings projecting east toward 5th Street. All of these wings would be increased by three stories at the 9th to 11th floors, in a cladding system intended to complement the original building. The inner wings would be extended approximately fifteen feet eastward toward 5th Street, serving as tower elements to frame the new one-story glass entrance pavilion at the center of the 5th Street facade, and sunken courtyards between the wings would allow for creating residential units within the first basement level. Trellis elements in the landscape along 5th Street would help provide a street presence. Another void at the center of the west facade would be created, and the building’s penthouse would be expanded. The second and third basement levels would continue to provide parking and utility space.
Ms. Mitchell presented the proposed floorplans, noting that the building would largely maintain its symmetrical layout, existing structure, and vertical circulation cores. The central lobby would have entrances on both 5th Street and 6th Street. The floorplans are consistent for the 3rd through 8th floors, then slightly different at the 9th, 10th, and 11th floors where terraces would be provided. Other exterior features include balconies, planters, screen walls, and railings; she said these different elements would help give a sense of life and activation, signaling that this is a residential building. The enlarged penthouse would include residential units, a large amenity space, and a swimming pool; she said the penthouse’s footprint allows for a green roof and lush greenspace at the top of the building to help soften the profile against the sky.
Ms. Mitchell presented the proposed material palette, intended to create a lighter and more delicate feel by cladding the new construction and the top of the building in a copper-bronze metal that would contrast with the existing precast panels on the rest of the building. The new facades would be scalloped at the top of the building as a subtle detail that is a slightly different interpretation of the existing precast; scalloped or fluted concrete would also be used in the in-fill on the 1st floor and for some of the site walls. Wood panels would be used as an accent material at the first floor to help give the building a more residential character.
Mr. Marcolin presented the proposed landscape. Along the principal facade on 5th Street, a planted area would extend twenty to thirty feet back from the sidewalk, creating a buffer for the ground-floor units and their terraces. A sense of privacy would be provided by low retaining walls, groundcover, and small flowering trees. The main entrance would be marked by a pair of large shade trees on either side of the glass entrance pavilion. A set of three trellises would be located on each side of the main entrance, made of light metal posts and transparent screens. The sunken courtyards would have shade trees and outdoor space for the lower-level units. Along E Street on the north, a narrow landscape strip would screen residential units from the public sidewalk. Along 6th Street on the west, the secondary entrance would include ramps and stairs softened by planting beds, flowering trees, shrubs, and groundcover. He presented a series of eye-level perspective renderings to illustrate how the site would appear for pedestrians walking around the building.
Ms. Mitchell concluded with several renderings of the entire building from different vantage points to show how the proposed alterations would break up the building’s mass and soften it through the use of the exterior bronze metal system. She also presented photo montages to illustrate the building’s appearance within the current context.
Vice Chair Edwards thanked the design team for the clear and thorough presentation, and she invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook commended the proposal as a handsome addition to this challenging building. He focused his comments on the details where the new construction abuts the existing precast facades, observing that this important transition does not appear fully resolved and needs to be explored further. Without the heavy corner details, the precast panels may seem thin and look like a veneer; he said the solution may be to use precast panels at the corners. Mr. Becker agreed that the transition does not appear to be resolved, and he suggested consideration of salvaging and reusing corner pieces of the existing facade that are being removed. Ms. Mitchell said the design team has been grappling with the corner issue, and the resolution is still being evaluated. Mr. Becker asked about the energy and sustainable aspects of the project, observing that much of the building’s exterior would be reused; Ms. Mitchell anticipated that the project would achieve a LEED environmental rating, but the details are still being considered.
Mr. Cook asked about the overall purpose and urban design intent of the trellises along 5th Street, commenting that they do not appear fully developed and seem to detract from the overall design. Ms. Mitchell said the trellises are being studied for the possibility of having a retail element, as suggested by the D.C. Historic Preservation Office. Mr. Becker said that adding retail, such as a convenience shop, might be beneficial to the new residents of the building. Ms. Delplace expressed concern about the scale and placement of the trellises, observing that while the design for the renovation of the building is very strong, the trellises appear to be tacked on and not integral to the overall proposal. She said the landscape design also needs further refinement, and she encouraged a more robust treatment; for example, the broad sidewalk along 5th Street could have additional trees, possibly a double row, in order to hold the street line. She said this solution has been used along 16th Street, where buildings similarly have a very wide setback from the curb.
Vice Chair Edwards suggested a consensus to approve the concept with the comments provided. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission adopted this action.
G. U.S. Mint
Secretary Luebke noted that an additional submission from the U.S. Mint was approved as part of the Government Submissions Consent Calendar (Appendix I).
1. CFA 20/FEB/25-9, American Eagle Platinum Proof coins for 2027 and 2028 (Charters of Freedom series). Designs for obverse. Revised final. (Previous: CFA 17/OCT/24-7)
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
2. CFA 20/FEB/25-10, 2026 American Innovation One Dollar Coin Program. Designs for the tenth set of coins: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and California. Final. (Previous: CFA 15/FEB/24-9)
Secretary Luebke introduced the design alternatives for the four coins to be issued in 2026 in the American Innovation series, which honors innovation and innovators from each of the states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. The series began with an introductory coin in 2018 and will continue through 2032, with four coins issued per year. The designs are only for the reverse; the continuing obverse for the series is an adaptation of the iconic Statue of Liberty design that has been used on the reverse of the series of presidential one-dollar coins. The theme for each coin was selected in consultation with the state governor’s office, and the designs were presented earlier in the week to the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC); the preferences of the governor’s office and the CCAC will be presented with the alternatives. He noted that the American Innovation coins are non-circulating; they will be available for sale. He asked program manager Roger Vasquez of the Mint’s Office of Design Management to present the design alternatives.
Iowa
Mr. Vasquez presented seven reverse alternatives for the Iowa coin, all honoring agricultural innovator Norman Borlaug. A native Iowan, Borlaug’s advocacy and research in sustainable agriculture resulted in increased crop yields that significantly improved the world’s food supply; Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Vasquez noted the preference of the governor’s office and the CCAC for alternative #1A, which depicts Borlaug in a field holding stalks of wheat; the inscriptions include his name and “Father of the Green Revolution.”
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook said that several of the alternatives are strong designs, including reverse #1A and #7A; he observed that #7A, depicting Borlaug within a field of wheat, gives a sense of his larger impact and the growth of agricultural yields. Ms. Delplace and Mr. Lenihan agreed that reverses #1A and #7A are strong, and they emphasized that #7A conveys the idea of being able to feed many people with an abundance of food from a farm. Mr. Lenihan expressed support for the inclusion of the inscription “Father of the Green Revolution,” which is in most of the alternatives including #1A and #7A. Dr. Edwards and Mr. Becker joined in offering support for both #1A and #7A.
Ms. Delplace commented that the coin design would ideally convey both the innovator and the innovation; she said the large portrait of Borlaug in reverse #1A may overemphasize the person instead of his achievements, while reverse #7A provides a better balance in telling both parts of the story. Mr. Becker suggested that the Commission should consider this design goal in the context of the entire series of American Innovation coins; Secretary Luebke noted that the program began in 2018 and is approximately halfway through the series of 56 coins.
Mr. Cook suggested that the Commission recommend reverse #7A because it depicts the impact of Borlaug’s work in addition to portraying Borlaug himself; he said the agricultural scene in #7A also relates to the importance of agriculture for Iowa. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission recommended reverse #7A for the Iowa coin.
Minnesota
Mr. Vasquez presented fourteen reverse alternatives for the Minnesota coin, all featuring the theme of mobile refrigeration. He described the refrigerated truck as a groundbreaking innovation with a profound global impact, from its initial patent in 1939 to its recent use in transporting the Covid-19 vaccine. An early company in this field, eventually known as Thermo King, was based in Minnesota. He said the primary preference of the governor’s office is for reverses #7A and #8A, with a secondary preference for #3 and #3A; the CCAC’s preference is for reverse #3. For #8A, the governor’s office cited the strong and accurate depiction of a period truck with an early version of the mobile refrigeration equipment, as well as the plant sprout and cross-in-circle symbol to represent the refrigerated transport of food and medicine. For #7A, the governor’s office cited the field and farm in the background but questioned whether the composition would appear too busy, and also questioned the lack of any reference to medicine. Reverses #3 and #3A represent temperature-sensitive goods with various symbols on the side of a 1940s-era truck—driving to the right in #3 and to the left in #3A—with an early front-mounted refrigeration unit. All of the alternatives include the inscription “Mobile Refrigeration.”
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace offered support for reverse #7A, describing it as a handsome design; she said this design’s lettering for “Minnesota” is reminiscent of some notable graphic designs for the state’s literature. She added that #7A also has the advantage of not relying on small elements and symbols to convey its message. Dr. Edwards said the Commission could request that the lettering of “Minnesota” in reverse #7A be used in one of the other alternatives.
Mr. Lenihan joined in supporting reverse #7A; he said the omission of a reference to medicine may be more acceptable if the refrigerated transport of medicine was not an important benefit in the 1940s period being depicted on the coin. Mr. Cook commented that the sprout and the medicine symbol in reverse #8A are too subtle for people to perceive, and he expressed support for #7A as well as #3; he observed that the more legible graphics on the side of the truck in #3 include an ice cream cone and vegetables as well as the medicine symbol. Mr. Becker said that reverses #3 and #7A are both acceptable.
Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission recommended reverses #3 and #7A for the Minnesota coin.
Wisconsin
Mr. Vasquez presented six reverse alternatives for the Wisconsin coin, all featuring the theme of the Cray-1 Supercomputer. Seymour Cray was a Wisconsin native, and Wisconsin-based Cray Research Inc. introduced the Cray-1 in 1975; it was the world’s fastest computer, enabling solutions to complex problems for science, industry, and government. The Cray-1’s optimization included an efficient C-shaped radial configuration for the computer’s twelve wedge-shaped components; he noted that some of the design alternatives show a different number of wedges, which will be adjusted to twelve. He said the preference of the governor’s office and the CCAC is reverse #5, which they cited as the best representation of the Cray-1 as seen from above, provided that the number of wedges is increased from nine to twelve. He added that the typography on this alternative is associated with early supercomputers, and the orientation of the plan view suggests the letter “C” as a reference to Cray and the computer.
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. While supporting the presented design preference, Mr. Becker asked why the composition’s central circular motif of the supercomputer is slightly off-center in reverses #5 and #5B; he suggested adjusting the design to be centered in conjunction with adjusting the number of wedges. Mr. Cook agreed. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission recommended reverse #5 with these modifications.
California
Mr. Vasquez presented six reverse alternatives for the California coin, all honoring technology innovator Steve Jobs. He cited Jobs’s transformation of society’s relationship with technology by integrating it into people’s lives with user-friendly and aesthetically pleasing designs that prioritized the mainstream user. He said the primary preference of the governor’s office and of the Steve Jobs Archive is reverse #7C, which portrays young Jobs sitting within the hilly natural environment of Northern California from which he drew inspiration; reverse #7A, a similar composition, is the secondary preference of the governor’s office and the Steve Jobs Archive. The design is intended to convey Jobs’s transformative vision of making complex technology as intuitive and organic as nature itself. The CCAC’s preference is reverse #10A, which features an iconic representation of Jobs making a presentation; the design emphasizes Jobs’s ability to connect with audiences, and the minimalist fonts honor his aesthetic vision.
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace expressed disappointment at the presented preferences, commenting that they do not convey a direct connection between Jobs and his technology innovations. She suggested consideration of reverse #1B, which best addresses this concern. Mr. Lenihan agreed, and he noted Jobs's innovative work in introducing proportional fonts; he said the coin design should reflect this typography instead of using a monospaced font. While not offering a strong preference among the alternatives, he commented that reverse #7C is more engaging than #7A.
Vice Chair Edwards noted the lack of consensus to support a design. Secretary Luebke said the Commission could support one of the presented preferences or another alternative, or request specific revisions, or decline to support any of the designs. He added that the Mint is sometimes able to return with a revised submission, although the coins in this series may require close coordination with the governor’s office.
Ms. Delplace commented that the concern is a general issue for the Mint, rather than a specific problem for the California coin. She suggested that future coins in this series focus more on the message of linking the innovator and the innovation, which seems to be lost in the presented alternatives. For reverses #7A and #7C, she said the pose of Jobs sitting on the hillside is Buddha-like but does not convey his extraordinary creations that people now use routinely. She nonetheless offered to support the presented preferences. Mr. Cook asked for clarification among the several preferences; Ms. Delplace said she would recommend reverse #10A because of its emphasis on Jobs’s ability to communicate his innovative ideas.
Mr. Cook requested more information about the phrase “Make Something Wonderful,” which is included in several of the alternatives including reverses #7A and #7C; he asked whether it is a quotation from Jobs or was said about him, and whether it is associated with a particular product, such as the Apple personal computer or the iPhone. Mr. Vasquez cited the phrase’s origin in a longer quotation from Jobs about how people express their appreciation for the rest of humanity, including people they have never met. Mr. Cook suggested consideration of adding this intriguing phrase to reverse #10A while trying to maintain the minimalist aesthetic of this composition; noting Jobs’s minimalist approach, he cautioned against letting the design become too crowded. Mr. Vasquez offered to convey this suggestion to the Mint’s chief engraver.
Dr. Edwards offered support for reverse #10A, noting the design’s simplicity and Jobs’s well-known image; she said his hand gesture conveys his innovative work without needing to hold an iPhone or any of his other devices. Mr. Lenihan noted the Commission’s reluctance to provide a strong recommendation for any of the designs. Ms. Delplace supported Mr. Cook’s suggestion to include the inscription “Make Something Wonderful” in whichever design is selected, which could be reverse #1B or one of the presented preferences. She reiterated that reverses #7A and #7C, with young Jobs sitting within the landscape, do not convey a message as clearly as in reverse #10A.
Mr. Becker observed that Jobs was involved in the invention of many things, and most of the alternatives appropriately do not select a single invention to depict. He agreed that the phrase “Make Something Wonderful” would convey the needed meaning, and he said he has no strong preference for whether Jobs should be depicted in the California hills or giving a presentation in his familiar black turtleneck. He suggested a consensus to support all three of the presented preferences, with the request that the final coin design include the inscription “Make Something Wonderful” and a proportional font that is consistent with Jobs’s design aesthetic. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission recommended reverses #7A, #7C, and #10A for the California coin with the comments provided.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:38 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA
Secretary