The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:00 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Hazel Ruth Edwards, Vice Chair
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Peter Cook
Hon. Lisa Delplace
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Hon. Justin Garrett Moore
Staff present:
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Jessica Amos
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
(Due to the absence of Chair Billie Tsien and Secretary Thomas Luebke, Vice Chair Edwards presided at the meeting and Assistant Secretary Batcheler represented the staff.)
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 20 March meeting. Assistant Secretary Batcheler reported that the minutes of the March meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the minutes.
B. Dates of next meetings. Assistant Secretary Batcheler presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 15 May, 18 June, and 17 July 2025. She noted that the June meeting is scheduled on a Wednesday because of the federal holiday on 19 June.
II.SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Assistant Secretary Batcheler introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting.
Appendix I – Government Submissions Consent Calendar: Mr. Hart said no changes have been made to the draft consent calendar, which includes three projects. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes nine projects; changes to the draft appendix are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. The recommendations for two projects are subject to further coordination with the applicants, and she requested authorization to finalize these recommendations when the outstanding issues are resolved. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix. (See agenda item II.D for an additional Shipstead-Luce Act submission.)
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Ms. Amos said no changes have been made to the draft appendix, which includes 24 projects. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
B. National Park Service / Virginia Passenger Rail Authority
CFA 17/APR/25-1, Long Bridge Project. New railroad and pedestrian bridges between Virginia and the District of Columbia. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 21/JUL/22-2)
Assistant Secretary Batcheler introduced the revised concept design for the Long Bridge improvement project, which is intended to provide additional railroad capacity by creating a four-track rail line through the 1.8-mile Long Bridge corridor—a complex of bridges and embankments between Virginia and the District of Columbia that runs through a varied context of waterways, federal parkland, historic and cultural properties, hotels, and office and residential buildings. Passenger transportation through the corridor includes Amtrak, Virginia Railway Express, Metrorail, vehicular roadways, and pedestrian and bicycle trails. The most significant part of the project is the construction of a new bridge parallel to the existing historic Long Bridge spanning the Potomac River.
Ms. Batcheler said the Commission last reviewed this project in July 2022, approving the concept design and encouraging the strong tectonic expression of this important piece of transportation infrastructure in both its materials and design. Specifically, the Commission had recommended that the stone cladding be a battered, dimensional stone instead of a thin veneer; that the vertical pier extensions on several bridge spans be eliminated; and that the concrete supports at the middle of the Ohio Drive bridge be clad in granite. For the landscape, the Commission had supported retaining the character of the historic landscape at the George Washington Memorial Parkway and at East Potomac Park, and had recommended massing the canopy trees to allow intermittent views of the new infrastructure as well as views outward into the monumental landscape.
Ms. Batcheler noted a small but prominent new component of the project—a railroad signal structure proposed to be adjacent to the Maryland Avenue overlook, projecting vertically into the Maryland Avenue view corridor. While the signaling system is a safety requirement, the Commission may wish to comment on its visibility, location, and treatment. She 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 NPS has been working with the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority (VPRA) on this project for many years; the role of NPS is both as the land manager for the project’s location and as a steward of historic and cultural resources within this critical corridor. NPS wants to ensure that the project is compatible with the surrounding park land, in addition to focusing on the broader transportation initiative that includes expanded rail capacity as well as a new bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists; the project provides significant new multimodal connections in this area that will be of great value to many visitors and local residents.
Ms. Stidham said today’s presentation reflects close coordination with VPRA to address design concerns while preserving the character of NPS-managed lands. She expressed appreciation to the Commission staff for its collaboration throughout the process, resulting in an improved design. She introduced Shirlene Cleveland, the senior director of the Long Bridge Project at VPRA, to continue the presentation.
Ms. Cleveland said today’s review is a critical step in advancing one of the most transformative infrastructure projects in the region, part of the $2.3 billion investment in the Transforming Rail in Virginia program that will significantly expand rail capacity, improve mobility, and support economic growth across Virginia and along the East Coast. The Long Bridge project’s two new rail tracks will alleviate one of the most critical rail bottlenecks in the country, allowing for increased capacity for both passenger and freight services. The tracks will be located on a new bridge across the Potomac River, to be built parallel to the existing 119-year-old Long Bridge. She said the project will allow separation of passenger rail from freight rail, which will improve on-time performance for both and will make travel and logistics more efficient.
Ms. Cleveland said the project’s scope has been divided into two packages—a south package for the Potomac River crossing and a north package that continues the corridor overland through Washington. She said today’s presentation addresses the north package; the south package will be submitted separately in approximately six months. She provided an overview of the project’s history and schedule; it began as a project of the D.C. Department of Transportation in 2011, and Virginia was designated the project’s builder in 2020 with the creation of the VPRA. The project is currently in the final design and construction phase, and VPRA has awarded the design/build contracts.
Ms. Cleveland said the project’s north package includes East and West Potomac Parks and the Maine Avenue area. Retaining walls would be used to reduce the corridor’s footprint in constrained locations; the intent is to design these walls to be compatible with the character of existing features, and the landscape design would be used to lessen the impact of the new infrastructure on the parkland. The selected design approach for the bridge type is through-plate girders of weathering steel wherever feasible. Retaining walls, piers, and abutments would be granite block masonry that corresponds to the historic rail structures in the corridor; the landscape intent is to respect the historic and cultural landscapes adjoining the rail corridor, and to filter views of the project elements while maintaining critical viewsheds.
Ms. Cleveland introduced several members of the Skanska/Flatiron joint venture that has been awarded the design-build contract for the north package; to present the design, she introduced bridge architect Jesse Miguel of HNTB and landscape architect Adrienne McCray of Lee & Associates.
Mr. Miguel provided an overview of the area’s existing bridge structures, including several road bridges that will remain; most of the rail bridges in the north package area would be replaced, including the bridges across Maine Avenue and the Washington Channel. The intent is to provide a consistent design vocabulary for the rail bridges that is distinct from the highway bridges, with the broader goal of a consistent aesthetic throughout the rail corridor through such details as the stone pattern.
Mr. Miguel presented a location map and elevations for the proposed retaining walls; he emphasized the consistent treatment of the granite facing and the parapets. Northeast of Maine Avenue, the facing would transition from granite to precast concrete panels for compatibility with the Portals development. The piers would be battered, except where constrained at the Interstate-395 bridge. Granite salvaged from the existing rail infrastructure would be reused at Ohio Drive to maintain the historic language of the existing bridge. At the Washington Channel, the existing abutment and retaining wall would remain in place, altered at the top to allow for construction the new bridge. The design of the new pedestrian bridge connecting the Portals complex with the waterfront has been coordinated with the owners of the Portals buildings; the proposal is to use the same materials as the new rail infrastructure, such as weathering steel.
Mr. Miguel presented the proposed railroad signal structure, which the CSX rail company requires as a safety feature where the tracks merge within the Portals complex. The design team has selected a color that is intended to help this truss structure blend in with the context.
Ms. McCray presented the lighting design, beginning with an inventory of existing light fixtures throughout the project area; the intent is to match the existing adjacent streetlights, which include single-globe and cobra-head fixtures, in each area of the project. The proposal also includes in-kind replacement of some teardrop fixtures along Maine Avenue, as well as wall-mounted lighting beneath bridges. Internal handrail lighting is proposed for the new pedestrian bridge and its approach stairs and ramps.
For the landscape design, Ms. McCray reiterated the overall goal to create a planting design consistent with the existing and historic vegetation, preserving the character of sweeping open lawns, large canopy trees, clusters of evergreens, and understory planting. The overall character would be naturalistic, with views that reveal the stone retaining walls and maintain the monumental viewsheds. The tree palette is based on extant plantings in the vicinity, historic inventories, and some native trees to serve as pollinator and wildlife resources. Understory plantings and shrubs include a mix of native and nonnative selections. The design includes new bioretention stormwater management facilities with additional pollinator species.
Ms. McCray said the landscape design calls for a range of sizes for the plantings in order to give a varied appearance. She noted that the design team has created an inventory of existing trees, along with a chart designating which trees are to be preserved; she indicated the trees being preserved around the existing ballfield, which would serve as a staging area for the project and would afterward be restored to its current use. In-kind replacement is proposed where existing trees would be removed for the proposed bridge widening. The edge of the Washington Channel would continue to have a buffer of trees and groundcover; a more diverse planting palette is proposed around the parking area near Maine Avenue, and an existing bioretention facility would be restored at the Portals. She presented a series of perspective views and enlarged plans and elevations to illustrate the proposed landscape.
Ms. McCray indicated an additional staging area planned at Hancock Park, located at 9th and C Streets, SW. The project team’s arborists will try to preserve the root zones of the park’s existing trees; additional infill planting is proposed, and the existing lawn would be restored.
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Lenihan expressed appreciation for the presentation, for the years of work that have gone into this project, and for the careful thought process in developing the design. He said that some of his previous questions about the stonework have been answered; he emphasized that mockups will be critical, especially for the reuse of the existing stone to ensure that the coloring and detailing blends together correctly. He observed that steel plate girders are a traditional bridge system for railroad construction; he noted some differences between the previous and current designs, such as the stiffener spacing, although these differences are difficult to discern in the small-scale drawings. He asked if the stiffeners would be consistently detailed, and whether they would have squared or radiused edges; more generally, he recommended careful detailing of all the bridge’s steel components, comparable to the care being taken in the detailing of the project’s stonework, landscape, and lighting. He commented that the weathering steel is appropriate for this project, but he asked how rust staining of the stonework would be avoided.
Mr. Miguel confirmed that the design for some of the plate stiffeners has been revised to meet structural requirements; he said the project team has been working with the Commission staff to keep the design as close as possible to the initial renderings, including the use of a radiused profile. Michael Rothenheber, the design manager for the Skanska/Flatiron joint venture, said the stiffeners would have a consistent appearance throughout the project. He said the detailing is currently being developed to ensure that the weathering steel does not cause staining of the stonework below; the result of this detailing effort will be shown to the staff and the Commission.
Mr. Moore asked for clarification of the proposed size for the railroad signal structure; he acknowledged the safety need for having the signals at the proposed location, but he asked for more information about the structure’s relationship to pedestrian-level views from the Maryland Avenue overlook. Ms. Cleveland said this view relationship has been studied extensively, with the goal of reducing the impact of the structure on pedestrian views. She emphasized that alternatives could not be found for the size and location of the structure within this very constrained rail corridor, and the structure’s catwalk is a necessary component to allow for inspection and maintenance of the signals. However, the color has been adjusted from a bright metallic tone to a more muted gray, which she said fades more into the background. Mr. Rothenheber clarified that the project team has worked with CSX to make the signal structure slightly lower than the standard height, aligning the bottom of the structure with the bottom of the Maryland Avenue deck; the color of the signal housings, typically black, would also be gray.
Ms. Delplace commended the project team’s responsiveness to the Commission’s previous comments on the landscape design; she said the current proposal is much more in keeping with the extant landscapes of East and West Potomac Parks. She observed that the project calls for removing a large number of trees, including many large canopy trees, and she asked about the sizes of the proposed replacement trees. Ms. McCray said the current intent is to specify a one- to three-inch caliper. Ms. Delplace expressed support for the intent to plant a range of tree sizes, and she encouraged including some larger-caliper trees to have a greater impact and offset the loss of the existing large trees.
Ms. Delplace supported the current proposal’s looser configuration of canopy trees, which is consistent with the historic landscape; she recommended extending this aesthetic to some areas that are still shown with rows of plantings. She emphasized that the visual impact of the continuous planted rows is especially problematic along pedestrian view corridors, and she said a looser configuration would help to achieve the project’s design goals.
Noting the general support for the proposal, Vice Chair Edwards asked if the Commission members want to delegate review of the final design of the north package to the staff. Ms. Delplace said the staff has worked quite closely with the project team and the results have been very good, and she therefore supported delegation of further review; Mr. Lenihan agreed. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the revised concept of the north package with the comments provided, and delegated further review of the north package to the staff.
C. D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
CFA 17/APR/25-2, Capital One Arena, 601 F Street, NW. Renovations and additions to existing facility. Concept. (Previous: CFA 20/FEB/25-3)
Assistant Secretary Batcheler introduced the presentation on the planned renovation of the Capital One Arena, submitted by the D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) in partnership with Monumental Sports and Entertainment. The existing arena, located in the Penn Quarter neighborhood and on the edge of Chinatown, was completed in 1997 as a major public-private reinvestment in downtown Washington; it was designed to be both monumental and contextual in its massing, facade design, and retail frontage. The arena is adjacent to two National Historic Landmarks—the Old Patent Office, now housing two Smithsonian museums, and the General Post Office, now a hotel.
Ms. Batcheler said that to meet modern standards and expectations for major sports, entertainment, and cultural events, the arena complex would undergo significant interior and exterior changes, including the relocation of entrances, the full replacement of the facades, and, most prominently, the addition of an undulating, translucent building wrap or veil at the upper levels, with an associated lighting program. She noted that the Commission heard an information presentation on this project at its February 2025 meeting in conjunction with a presentation on the D.C. Government’s larger planning efforts for this area. The Commission’s guidance at that meeting included comments on the urban design and architectural goals of activating the public space around the arena and unifying the building facades; the Commission had questioned whether these goals could be achieved through the proposed modifications, particularly the proposal to replace the recently vacated exterior-facing retail spaces with interior-facing amenities for arena events. Another component identified by the Commission that may interfere with achieving the stated project goals is the episodic, random form of the building wrap, which lacks the coherence necessary to shape the urban realm or unify the building.
Ms. Batcheler said the project team has made some revisions to the proposed design, including changes to the geometry and transparency of the building wrap; the reintroduction of glazing near the southwest and southeast corners; the introduction of faceted metal panels instead of smooth panels at the upper levels of the main facade; a slight widening of the Metrorail entrance at 7th and F Streets; a new continuous projecting band above the ground level with a reduction in the extent of the video signage band; and additional signage boards and niches for public art along the sidewalk. However, she said that no additional revisions to the mixture of interior- versus exterior-facing retail are proposed. She asked Nate Klass, the development manager at DMPED, to begin the presentation.
Mr. Klass said the D.C. Government sees this renovation as an important driver for reimagining the downtown area as a magnet for residents and visitors. He introduced architects Jordan Goldstein and Brandon Mermelstein of Gensler to present the concept design.
Mr. Goldstein said the presentation will focus on revisions made since the February 2025 information presentation. The materials palette has been simplified, with the use of limestone panels for the building’s base and limestone bricks above the base; the metal panels on the main facade are now proposed to have a textured surface to complement the wrap above. The amount of glazing has been increased, responding to the Commission’s comments about the need for greater transparency and visibility from both inside and outside the building. He said other changes include introducing a more human scale at the ground plane, and expanding new opportunities for retail spaces and connections to the street at corners and other areas. Mr. Goldstein presented a series of renderings to illustrate specific changes.
Mr. Goldstein said that a major feature of the building’s plan is that the bowl of the arena occupies a significant portion of the footprint; the corners of the building therefore present the best opportunities for new interior uses. The Metrorail entrance in the building’s southwest corner at 7th and F Streets would be modified, and the retail location in the southeast corner at 6th and F Streets would be enlarged. At the northwest corner, the concourse that stretches east from 7th Street would be expanded; the existing loading dock and parking garage entrance would remain in their current location at the northeast corner along 6th Street. A new two-level glass entrance would be added on 6th Street, providing improved accessibility and greater transparency in place of the currently blank wall along a sloping grade. Artworks would be integrated into the project at the pedestrian level. On the 7th Street facade north of the Metro entrance, a greater degree of openness and glazing would be achieved with a glazed vertical area marking the presence of a staircase.
Mr. Goldstein addressed the Commission’s previous comments about the treatment of the base. The change to limestone panels was influenced by the presence of the historic Patent Office Building, now a Smithsonian complex, immediately west of the arena across 7th Street. The signage band at the F Street entrance has been simplified; glazing would replace upper-level signage board on 6th Street to provide greater transparency along the street. The simplified geometry of the wrap at the northwest corner would allow more daylight into the building. The enlargement of the existing atrium on the north—with existing kiosks and signage removed and the glass enclosure reconfigured—would provide an expanded second main entrance to the arena.
Mr. Mermelstein said the veil lighting has been studied further in response to the Commission’s previous comments. The lighting is intended to provide a soft glow for the neighborhood, not as bright as the digital signboards. He noted that the facade of the adjacent Smithsonian building is also lit at night, as is the three-story glass-enclosed lobby of the Shakespeare Theatre Company across F Street.
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker thanked the design team for its responses to the Commission’s previous comments; however, he questioned the purpose of the proposed veil. Observing that the building could be very bright at night, he questioned whether dark-sky principles had been adequately considered. He also asked about the building’s sustainability program and whether the building is exempt from the D.C. Government’s sustainability guidelines. Mr. Goldstein said the location and purpose of the veil is to screen the large and extensive mechanical structures on the roof, noting that these roof structures are currently visible along 7th and F Streets and from neighboring buildings. The veil would soften the roofline and also create a dynamic movement across the 6th, F, and 7th Street facades; it would wrap around and unify the building, which now appears to be composed of separate masses. Mr. Mermelstein added that the atrium roof of the adjacent Smithsonian building had served as inspiration for the veil; he also noted that the project is required to meet LEED environmental standards.
Mr. Goldstein said the facade would not have direct uplighting; illumination would come from within the superstructure supporting the veil, and the facade panels would be lit from the side. Mr. Mermelstein said the lighting system for the veil would be gentle, with light from the frame directed inward instead of shooting up or out from the building. Mr. Becker asked how the neighboring buildings would benefit from having the top of the veil illuminated, and he suggested further study of the veil and the sightlines. Mr. Goldstein said the LED lighting within the veil structure would be dimmable, and a gradient could be used that would provide less light toward the top of the building.
Mr. Becker questioned whether the design as proposed could achieve the desired LEED standard. He suggested consideration of incorporating photovoltaic elements into the top of the veil. He also advised evaluating the proposed materials for their embodied carbon, which is part of the current LEED standard. He acknowledged the intended purpose of the veil to unify the building and mask its mechanical elements, but he questioned whether it needs to be such a prominent, illuminated element or whether it could be more restrained in appearance while still achieving the same purpose and contributing more toward sustainability goals. He also asked if enough space could be available to provide shallow outward-facing retail spaces in more locations. Mr. Mermelstein emphasized the sustainability benefits of remaining in the existing building, making use of the existing transit and structure; these benefits are part of the LEED evaluation. He said that Gensler has its own environmental standards, and the entire project team is committed to this issue. He added that the veil would have smoother, lighter areas that would just graze the facades, and the top of the veil would be restrained in its expression.
At this point, Assistant Secretary Batcheler asked to summarize a public comment letter on the proposed design, provided by John Edwards on behalf of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City. She said this letter is provided in addition to the Committee of 100’s comments provided to the Commission at the February 2025 presentation of this project.
Ms. Batcheler said the Committee of 100 reiterates that the stated goals and intentions of the proposed exterior design are worthy, but the resulting design does not appear to effectuate these goals; the improvements to the design are relatively minor and fall short of the goals. Regarding the veil, the letter comments that while it is innovative in its ETFE material, it remains a tacked-on element that does not coherently relate to the form or use of the building, nor to the surrounding urban and historic context. Considering the veil’s prominence, its form should have some intrinsic meaning that contributes to the permanent context of Gallery Place as well as to the arena. The veil also fails to unite the building on all facades because it ends abruptly around the corner of F and 6th Streets, leaving much of the 6th Street facade bare.
Ms. Batcheler said the Committee of 100 writes that the cited precedents for the veil—particularly at the adjacent Smithsonian building, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the National Museum of African American History and Culture—have both functional and intrinsic meanings related to the uses of their buildings, but such meaning is not found here. The Committee of 100 describes the lighting effects of the veil as more valuable; however, the combined effect of this lighting with the brighter and more discordant luminosity of the proposed exterior video screens remains problematic. The video screens are still largely unrelated to the rest of the architecture, most noticeably the veil, and the lack of any apparent integration of the screens into the overall configuration of massing, walls, and glazing is glaring. The letter says that the prominent location of the main video screens at the corner above the Metro entrance provides a unique opportunity to both visually highlight the entrance and anchor the screens into the facade’s formal organization, which would help to define this corner; the design team is encouraged to refine these elements more.
For the metal cladding, Ms. Batcheler said the Committee of 100 expresses appreciation for the additional detailing but does not find that the added texture addresses the disconnect between the veil and the underlying building. The introduction of glazing at the entry points would help relieve this, and could be especially effective if integrated more purposefully into the exterior composition. The glazing seems most effective at the retail corner of 6th and F Streets and at the new 6th Street entrance, and the Committee of 100 encourages a more consistent treatment of the other glazed entrances so they read as glass volumes rather than just changes in material and transparency.
Ms. Batcheler said the letter describes the grounding of the building with a stone base as an improvement, but the overall development of how the building meets the ground still appears haphazard and unintegrated. While acknowledging the reasons for the relative lack of street-facing retail, the Committee of 100 finds that the street-level elements are inconsistently articulated and integrated into the building as a whole, leading to an uninspiring pedestrian experience; however, the treatment of the 6th Street entrance appears more intentional and successful. The Committee of 100 encourages a complementary level of development for F and 7th Streets and a consistent treatment to integrate the proposed art installations, information boards, and artwork along F Street, commenting that these still look like disparate elements in a largely disconnected pedestrian experience, weakening the intent to create a cohesive and perceivable identity. The letter concludes by saying that the Committee of 100 looks forward to seeing the role the arena can play in the continued revitalization of Gallery Place.
Mr. Goldstein returned to Mr. Becker’s question about the potential for retail spaces around the building perimeter. He said the shape of the arena bowl within the building will not change, and the bowl pushes the surrounding concourse toward the edges of the building; glazing will be used where the concourse meets the facades along 6th and 7th Streets, marked in blue on the plan diagrams. He said the available interior space at these locations is just the width of the concourse, with no additional space available for retail; however, the corners of the building provide some additional space, and this is where the building fabric would be opened up as much as possible. The team store, which is currently inside the arena, would be moved into vacant retail space along the perimeter. He said another limitation is the many required spaces around the arena that cannot be changed, such as concessions, back-of-house, infrastructure, and egress, but he emphasized that the project would open up all possible areas within the building.
Mr. Becker asked if the tall, upper-level fan experience areas could extend down to the sidewalk level; Mr. Mermelstein said this extension is proposed where possible. He said the existing retail space at the southeast corner provides access into the fan experience area and would remain as its main entrance, with a more visible and transparent glass expression. More the fan experience areas would be visible at the southwest corner and along 7th Street, where the mid-block expression of the concourse would become much more transparent; the glass facade would be pulled out to the sidewalk in front of the columns, creating a social zone within. He emphasized that the interior space would be expressed along the street wherever possible. Mr. Becker said he appreciates the direction the work is following; he added that the comments from the Committee of 100 reflect his own views.
Mr. Moore said he recalled from the information presentation a broader conversation about the neighborhood and the desire to weave the daily experience of the community into this project. He observed that today’s presentation has not included this component, and the primary goal was defined as having the building contribute more to the arena’s performances and events; nonetheless, the larger urban design is still an important framework and priority for this building. He acknowledged the challenge of reconciling this goal with the desires of the client, but he emphasized that this is an urban building, and its primary goal should be to make a positive contribution to the city. He said more work needs to be done to provide a reason for reinvestment in this building; it will remain part of the city for an indefinite period, so it must function as a good neighbor. While the project team’s presentation responded to the issues that have been raised, he said he does not find the response to be promising.
Mr. Moore asked several questions about the arena’s main entrance along F Street. He expressed concern that relocating this entrance closer to the subway entrance—which is on an urban corner with a narrow sidewalk—would cause problems with queuing and crowding. He noted that this corner lacks any plaza or other sort of buffer area, and he asked for more discussion about the workability of placing a major arena entrance next to a transit entrance, both of them opening onto a narrow sidewalk. Mr. Goldstein responded that the F Street entrance now is a major bottleneck, requiring people to enter the arena at one of the tightest places in the building’s interior, where the bowl of seats is close to the street; additionally, an elevator bank is located just inside the entrance, along with vertical circulation cores on both sides, which forces lines to back up along the F Street sidewalk toward 6th and 7th Streets. He said that moving this main entrance westward would position the interior lobby where more space is available between the building facade and the seating bowl, allowing for more interior queuing and circulation without getting jammed against a circulation core. He said the design team does not think moving the arena entrance closer to the Metro entrance would be problematic, and it might even be an improvement; people leaving the Metro station have been arriving at a wall of people waiting to enter the arena, and creating a wider portal could address this problem.
Mr. Moore asked for clarification of the location for the arena entrance’s control point, where people would show their tickets and go through security screening. Mr. Goldstein said that security and ticket-checking would take place inside the lobby, allowing people to enter the building and get to their seats more quickly. Mr. Moore again asked how far inside the building this point would be located; Mr. Goldstein said the security check would occur within the first five feet. Mr. Moore observed that many people would be entering at the same time, and a control point near the facade would result in queuing along the sidewalk regardless of where the arena bowl is. The proposed relocation of the arena entrance to provide a larger lobby would clearly improve the visitor experience after the control point, but it would not address the congestion outside the building as people arrive from the Metro, the sidewalks, or by car.
Mr. Mermelstein responded that the entry process would be much easier than the present security walk through magnetometers. Additionally, the proposed design would accommodate 40 percent of ticket scanning at the northern entrance along the expanded atrium, which is crucial to successfully improving circulation on the arena’s south side; additional entrance capacity would also be provided along 6th Street, creating a 270-degree experience around the arena instead of the current condition of concentrating the entrance activities on the south side. Mr. Goldstein added that the proportion of pedestrian entrance activity would be 50 percent on F Street, 40 percent from the atrium on the north, and 10 percent on 6th Street.
Mr. Moore said this information is helpful. He asked about the ground-level experience for pedestrians, and the balance of variability and continuity that would be possible with a building this large. He said he agrees with most of the points raised in the letter from the Committee of 100. He said that the proposal for a very large digital information board at pedestrian level is a concern, especially at a crowded, congested corner with a lot of traffic where people need to make quick decisions. While he expressed support for the proposal to incorporate artwork or a commemorative wall element on F Street, he said such an element could be designed to do much more to address some of the issues raised about the pedestrian experience; he said this part of the proposal requires additional study by the design team or by specialized consultants. An information board or artwork could become a productive element of the project, but he said what is proposed would not work; this zone of the building needs further development with careful human-scale study.
Mr. Moore observed that the reduced size of the second-floor digital sign band has not been reflected in a reduced architectural treatment to accommodate this change. Signs are proposed to be located periodically along a continuous projecting band wrapping around the entire building, which he said is counter to much of the feedback from the Commission about the need for variability, an experience scaled to pedestrians, and other concerns. He acknowledged that some elements, such as awnings and signage, would need to be at specific locations; however, a continuous projecting band encircling the entire perimeter of the building, hundreds of feet long, is inconsistent with creating a good pedestrian experience. He said this element should be completely reconsidered and minimized, responding to program needs at specific locations and providing variety at the pedestrian scale. Finally, Mr. Moore questioned the proposed veil. He said he agrees with the Committee of 100’s comments that the veil is not yet working successfully and that its integration with the building architecture has not been fully resolved. He summarized that without significant changes, he does not support going forward with the current version of the design. Mr. Goldstein responded that in the previous presentation, the band had extended outward in several places to act as a canopy; to address the Commission’s comments, the band has been scaled back and connected more closely to the facade, projecting only to accommodate lighting for entrances or to act as a canopy.
Mr. Lenihan said he agrees with the comments of the other Commission members and also with those from the Committee of 100. He emphasized that the issue of the streetscape has not yet been addressed. The arena occupies a city block, and the design must show how the building would activate the block; instead, only a few trees are depicted. He said that arenas have many periods of downtime when they are not occupied, and he requested illustrations of how the building would address the city when the arena is empty. Ms. Delplace supported this comment, observing that most of the renderings show the activity of a vibrant and active neighborhood when the arena is in use. Renderings should be prepared depicting the arena’s appearance when it is not in use and generating pedestrian activity, for example showing whether the entrances and storefronts would be lit. She said events within the arena are episodic, but this very large site must function within the neighborhood all the time; she emphasized the importance of understanding what this area would be like every day.
Dr. Edwards said she has been to the arena for many different types of events, and she said she has noticed that F Street is often closed to car traffic. She suggested exploring how the sidewalk pedestrian zone extends into F Street during events, and she asked if the closures of F Street would continue with the new entrance configurations. She also observed that the veil is shown to abruptly end when it turns the corner from F Street to 6th Street; she asked why it would not be extended along the entire frontage, as it is on the other facades, and she requested more renderings that explore this condition. Mr. Goldstein responded that for security reasons the closure of F Street will still be necessary during events. He said the design team advocates for the development of the streetscape, but its design is not within the project scope. Dr. Edwards pointed out that the streetscape is nonetheless critical to the arena’s operation; Mr. Goldstein agreed. Regarding the veil’s abrupt termination, Mr. Mermelstein said the project’s primary and busiest corner is at 7th and F Streets; the design intent is to make a major move extending outward from that corner and to reduce the scale of the design, including the veil, as it moves north up 6th Street.
Dr. Edwards asked about the number of people arriving at the arena via Metro compared to other modes of transportation. She said the proposed relocation of the arena entrance appears to actually reduce the size of the Metro entrance. Mr. Mermelstein responded that the design matches or nearly matches the existing width of the Metro entrance; the proposal would strengthen the corner by cladding it in limestone and extending it slightly to the south, and the canopy would be extended as well. He said these changes are meant to make the Metro entrance appear more prominent and identifiable by giving it additional visual strength and presence, which should not interfere with its function. Mr. Goldstein added that the Metro entrance enhancements would improve the entire arrival experience, including improvements to the ceiling treatment and the lighting brightness; this would improve public safety and the sense of welcome for people using this Metro entrance.
Assistant Secretary Batcheler asked for clarification about the proposed size of the Metro entrance, noting that various components have been slightly widened or narrowed as the design has been developed. Mr. Mermelstein said the entrance’s openings on 7th and F Streets would be the same as the existing widths; this reflects a widening from the previously presented design. He said the width is limited by the presence of the columns and Metro escalators, but operationally it will be the same. Ms. Batcheler said the details for the proposed recladding of the corner column should be presented to the Commission to evaluate any impact on the pedestrian experience at this prominent corner.
Ms. Batcheler summarized that the Commission members have concerns about multiple parts of the project and do not seem to support a concept approval; she said the very specific comments that have been provided will be useful for the design team in its continued development of the proposal, and the Commission will look forward to seeing the response. Vice Chair Edwards agreed and thanked the project team for the presentation. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
(During the presentation of the following agenda item, Mr. Moore departed for the remainder of the meeting.)
D. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
SL 25-062, 313 2nd Street, NE. St. Joseph’s Church. New parish center, carriage house renovation, and site improvements. Concept.
Assistant Secretary Batcheler introduced the concept design for a new parish center on the campus of Saint Joseph’s Church; the project includes renovation of an existing carriage house to be incorporated into the parish center, as well as associated site improvements. She said the existing brownstone church was built in 1868 in the Gothic Revival style and is a contributing building to the Capitol Hill Historic District; other contributing buildings on the campus are the 1887 rectory and the 1921 Madonna House residential building. An existing parish center and garage on the campus would be demolished, along with a surface parking lot. The project is the first phase of a planned three-phase program of improvements to the church campus; future phases would include a new residential building to the northwest and a new education center to the northeast.
Ms. Batcheler said the existing carriage house would be expanded with a gable-roofed brick addition to form the new parish center, which would hold an entrance and reception area, a 150-person community gathering space, a choir room, classrooms, and support spaces. Site improvements would include a new outdoor entrance courtyard, new paving at the drive aisle and alley, and a security fence and vehicular gates. She asked Sean Pichon and Jorel Sanchez of Michael Graves Architecture & Design to present the proposal.
Mr. Pichon said the design has been developed in consultation with the Commission staff, the D.C. Historic Preservation Office, and the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission; the project will be reviewed by the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board.
Mr. Sanchez described the context of the site, located on the block to the northeast of the Hart Senate Office Building and across 2nd Street from a Senate parking lot. The oldest building on the block dates from 1857; the church was constructed from 1868 to 1891, and construction of the rectory began in 1888. Other structures on the church campus were built between 1900 and 1925. He presented a plan and photographs of the various buildings and site features on the campus, along with elevation drawings to illustrate the context of the entire block; he noted that most of the buildings are brick. He indicated the existing parish center, garage, and tool shed that would be demolished, along with part of the backyard garden of the Madonna House; the project would create an enclosed courtyard between the new parish center and the Madonna House, with additional landscape improvements in the area.
Mr. Sanchez presented a diagram of vehicular and pedestrian access to the campus, which includes a combination of public and church-owned alleys. Primary vehicular access to the parish center would be from 2nd Street to the west; secondary access would be via the public alley from 3rd Street to the east, and additional pedestrian access is available from C Street to the south alongside the Madonna House’s western side. The proposal would clarify the site circulation with paving to delineate programmable outdoor spaces and the limits of vehicular circulation; the public alleys would not be affected. A courtyard area would be available for staff parking and could be used as an outdoor gathering space for special events; he said the proposed paving would create a more human scale for this area. The fenced courtyard would have a simpler linear paving pattern; the fence design is inspired by the traditional iron fences seen on Capitol Hill, with a pointed arch gate flanked by piers with wide sconces.
Mr. Sanchez presented the interior plans for the parish center, including the main two-story gathering space, as well as the elevation drawings in relation to the other campus buildings; the proposed height of the parish center has been reduced to be approximately two feet lower than the rectory. The existing carriage house would be reconfigured to provide a kitchen, prep space, and bathrooms to support the gathering space. He said the intent is to restore the charm and character of the carriage house based on historical details, including removal of infilled walls to restore the original window openings on the public-facing north and east facades that front on the alley system and the rear of other properties on the block. The proposed addition would abut the carriage house’s south and west facades, facing inward to the church’s property; these facades would undergo restorations and modifications that maintain the historic fabric while creating a useful space for the church community. The modifications would include removal of infill walls and exterior stairs to provide better proportioned openings and recapture some of the original fenestration. The existing exterior paint would be removed to expose the brick facades. He said the resulting carriage house would bring to life the original character of the alley while giving continued life to the building.
Mr. Sanchez described the proposed parish center as a grand space for celebration; he compared it to other grand spaces across the city, such as Eastern Market, but with a more humanistic approach. The large addition’s exterior would be Roman brick on top of a cast stone base, with rich detailing around the bottom of the corners. The windows would have a high sill level to provide privacy from passers-by and parked cars, intended to make the interior gathering space feel like an oasis from the surroundings. On the west facade, a center arched window would highlight the entrance that would be used during special events. He noted that this facade was modified, including a reduction in height, based on consultation with the Commission staff. He said the color of the addition’s exterior brick would be complementary to the other masonry buildings across the campus; he described the proportions and tone as achieving a good composition that maintains the character of the space while clearly indicating that the addition is newer.
Mr. Sanchez presented additional details of the proposed addition. The brick facades would feature a herringbone pattern with special detailing around the edge; soldier courses would be used above the cast stone and at the window’s edge, and stacked soldier courses would be used between windows. Projecting brick courses would be used at the base, at the top and bottom of the window, and below the roof line.
Mr. Sanchez said the project includes minor modifications to the Madonna House, including expansion of a window opening to become a door opening; the design would also create a clear division between spaces for visitors and the private residential quarters of the Madonna House. He concluded by presenting a series of perspective renderings of the proposed parish center, including views from the Madonna House garden; he said the richly detailed brick fence would be restored.
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook expressed appreciation for the clear and well-organized presentation, and he described the proposal as an appropriate and reasonable design response. He commented that the brickwork as illustrated seems too fussy, and he suggested simplification and editing to develop a cleaner design; he said this concern is most apparent at the archway and corners of the addition. He also recommended careful detailing of the proposed paving, cautioning that improper installation could lead to near-term wearing and cracking.
Ms. Delplace asked if the project is subject to stormwater management requirements; she observed that the site’s extensive paved area is generally being replaced with new paved area without much landscaping. Mr. Pichon said the civil engineering issues have not yet been studied closely, but the project will be subject to stormwater management requirements. The management strategy would make use of existing and new green spaces, and he anticipated that some bioretention areas would be included within these spaces. Ms. Delplace asked why raised planters are shown instead of using in-ground planting, which could result in a less harsh character and better management of stormwater. Mr. Pichon responded that in-ground planting is proposed along the rear fence, and raised planters are proposed at the gate to provide seating. Mr. Sanchez also noted that a below-grade waterline of unknown depth crosses the site to supply the Madonna House, and the project is designed to avoid excavation along its alignment. Ms. Delplace recommended considering these issues as soon as possible in the design process; she noted that the D.C. Government’s stormwater regulations are stringent, which may result in design modifications that affect pedestrian circulation and the intended use of the outdoor spaces.
Vice Chair Edwards suggested a consensus to approve the concept with the comments provided. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission adopted this action.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:19 a.m.
Signed,
Sarah Batcheler, AIA
Assistant Secretary