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
Staff present:
Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Mary Catherine Bogard
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
(In the absence of Chair Billie Tsien, Vice Chair Edwards presided at the meeting; Secretary Luebke noted that he has returned from his absence.)
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 15 May meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the May meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Vice Chair Edwards suggested a motion to approve the minutes; upon a motion by Mr. Cook, the Commission voted to approve the minutes.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 17 July, 18 September, and 16 October 2025. He noted that there would be no meeting in August, and that the proposed meeting schedule for 2026 will be presented at next month’s meeting for the Commission’s review.
C. Report on the 2025 National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs (NCACA) grant program. Secretary Luebke reported on the status of this year’s applications for the NCACA program, administered by the Commission since 1989. The Commission staff has evaluated whether the applicants met the numerous eligibility requirements, and the eligibility of the applicants was confirmed by the panel, consisting of the Commission’s Vice Chair Edwards as well as representatives of the chairs of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. A total of 28 institutions were evaluated and approved for grants by the panel, which includes 25 returning participants from the 2024 program and three new applicants: the Mosaic Theater, Opera Lafayette, and the Washington Concert Opera.
Mr. Luebke said the legislative appropriation for 2025 is $5 million, the same as in recent years. The amount of each grant is determined by an established formula; the median for this year’s grants is approximately $150,000, which constitutes an average of approximately four percent of the operating income for the recipient institutions—an important factor in supporting arts and culture in Washington. He noted that the full appropriation has not yet been released to the Commission for disbursement, but this should be resolved soon.
D. Appointment of Mary Katherine Lanzillotta, FAIA, to the Old Georgetown Board. Secretary Luebke said the next item is the appointment of Mary Katherine Lanzillotta to the Old Georgetown Board (OGB) for a new three-year term, from September 2025 through July 2028; she had previously served on the OGB for five years, from 2016 to 2021. He summarized her work as a preservation architect and partner at Hartman-Cox Architects, where she has been responsible for managing complex institutional and historic projects in Washington, D.C., and throughout the country. Notable projects she has managed include work on major Washington landmarks: the Smithsonian Institution’s American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, the American Pharmacists Association on Constitution Avenue, the Hay-Adams Hotel at Lafayette Square, the Patterson Mansion in Dupont Circle, and the east and west buildings of the National Gallery of Art. She received a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the University of Virginia and a Master of Architecture degree and a Certificate in Preservation from the University of Pennsylvania. She has been an active member of the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, from which she received the Centennial Award in 2018; she was elevated to the AIA’s College of Fellows in 2008. Mr. Luebke noted that she also works as executive architect to the American Battle Monuments Commission and has presented several of these projects to the Commission.
Vice Chair Edwards called for a vote on the nomination; upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved Ms. Lanzillotta’s appointment. Secretary Luebke said the appointment would be announced at the July OGB meeting and Ms. Lanzillotta’s service would begin in September.
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 the consent calendar includes sixteen items, as well as the reporting of one delegated item that has been approved by the staff. One project has been added to the draft consent calendar that had been circulated to the Commission—a small brick-clad screening building at the Potomac Annex by U.S. General Services Administration (project number CFA 18/JUN/25-q). Secretary Luebke noted that the delegated approval is for the National Desert Shield and Desert Storm Memorial (project number CFA 18/JUN/25-p); the staff has worked closely and productively with the project team to resolve the final details of the bas-relief walls and other elements, and this completes the Commission’s review of the project. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the revised Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes nine projects. Three cases have been removed from the draft appendix and are being held open for review in a future month (case numbers SL 25-095, SL 25-098, and SL 25-105); the recommendations on two cases were changed to be favorable following the receipt of revised materials (case numbers SL-25-099 and SL 25-101). The recommendations for six projects are subject to the receipt of supplemental materials and further coordination with the applicants; other changes to the draft appendix are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. She requested authorization to finalize these recommendations when the outstanding issues are resolved. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Ms. Bogard said changes to the draft appendix, which includes 31 projects, are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the revised Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.B and II.F.2. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without a presentation.
B. National Park Service / Virginia Passenger Rail Authority
CFA 18/JUN/25-1, Long Bridge Project. New railroad and pedestrian bridges between Virginia and the District of Columbia (South Package). Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 21/JUL/22-2; CFA 17/APR/25-1)
Secretary Luebke said the Commission staff has worked with the project team to address the issues raised by the Commission at its review of the overall project in July 2022 and of the North Package in April 2025. The revised concept for the South Package omits the vertical pier extensions at the George Washington Memorial Parkway as requested by the Commission; a bowstring truss is also proposed for the pedestrian bridge at the parkway. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the revised concept submission.
F. D.C. Department of General Services
2. CFA 18/JUN/25-7, Fort Davis Recreation Center, 1400 41st Street, SE. New building and landscape improvements. Final. (Previous: CFA 16/JAN/25-3)
Secretary Luebke said the staff finds the final design to be responsive to the Commission’s previous comments. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with a second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the final design.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.C.
C. Smithsonian Institution
CFA 18/JUN/25-2, Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, 600Independence Avenue, SW. New building and landscape for the Bezos Learning Center. Final. (Previous: CFA 21/NOV/24-2)
Secretary Luebke introduced a final design proposal for a new building and landscape for the Bezos Learning Center (BLC), to be located on the east side of the National Air and Space Museum (NASM), on the site of the demolished pyramidal glass food court, across 4th Street from the National Museum of the American Indian. He said that in its approval of the revised concept design in November 2024, the Commission members had provided several comments: they reiterated support for the concept design’s diagrammatic clarity and emphasized the importance of maintaining its energy and fluidity while developing it further, particularly at the areas where the landscape elements meet the NASM building—such as the berm at the northwest and the patterned concrete of the courtyard. He noted that the Commission members had commented that the design should avoid having trees block clear views to the north entrance from the National Mall; they had advised simplifying the site wall configurations at the Hass Observatory, consistent with its smaller scale and unique form; and they had expressed support for changes to the angled edge of the exterior enclosure at the upper floors of the south facade.
Mr. Luebke said the project team has continued to work on the design. In general, the diagrammatic clarity has been refined and strengthened, as seen in the relationship between the building and landscape, as well as in the landscape at the observatory; the proposed color and material palettes are consistent with the approved concept design. Commission staff has continued to participate in regulatory Section 106 historic preservation meetings; staff recently evaluated an initial mockup of the proposed exterior lighting system, finding that it is generally consistent with the concept design and the Commission’s comments. He asked Carly Bond, associate director for architectural history and historic preservation at the Smithsonian, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Bond thanked the Commission staff for its ongoing participation in the development of the project through the Section 106 consultation process, which has helped the project team advance the design. She asked architects Ralph Johnson and David Rader of Perkins & Will and Elizabeth Kennedy of Elizabeth Kennedy Landscape Architect to present the design.
Mr. Johnson said the new building’s scale and location is consistent with the pavilion that formerly occupied the site. Its design is intended to express a sense of movement, with its spiraling form recalling the shape of a spiral galaxy; its design is also intended to provide a counterpoint to the blocky massing of NASM. He said the BLC has been designed as a pavilion within a landscape, and its spiral form would create an accessible landscape that would be welcoming within its context, including the Mall and the nearby Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial.
Ms. Kennedy said the spiraling landscape concept is intended to represent a dispersion of knowledge and learning from the Smithsonian to the wider world. Since the Commission’s last review, the circulation and planting patterns have been simplified to reinforce the strength and spatial experience of the spiral. She said the plantings would support the experience of the spiral building form and landscape configuration; they would also incorporate the various tree species used at NASM. The revised design of the viewing platform area would allow people to circulate in a more intuitive way from the museum to the Learning Courtyard and Astronomy Park. The landscape design extends the planting palette developed for the earlier revitalization of NASM to create planting themes for the Learning Courtyard and also for the Moon Garden at the southeast corner, next to the observatory; she noted that this palette has been expanded to increase the range and variety of species native to the region and to invite more pollinators. The Moon Garden will use species from the palette that support planting typologies reminiscent of the American landscape, particularly the landscape found along historic Route 66 in the Southwest, where the darkest night skies and the largest number of observatories are located; the range of night-blooming perennials in the Moon Garden has been increased.
Ms. Kennedy presented the hardscape palette and how the installations proposed for the Astronomy Park would affect circulation and accessibility. She indicated the location of three-dimensional elements such as sculptures and interactive features, various paving patterns, and the telescopes near the observatory. Paving for the Astronomy Park and the Learning Courtyard would be consistent with the color of the NASM ground plane, with inlaid stainless steel elements to illustrate the orbits of planets in the solar system and the movement and expansion of the galactic spiral. Because the perimeter of the design would maintain the geometries and hierarchy of the larger museum site, the outer planets represented in the solar system ground plane illustration would be clad with “Colonial Rose” granite to match the museum cladding. Stair treads would be Chelmsford granite with a thermal finish, as at NASM. The spiral benches in the courtyard and the planter seat wall adjacent to the observatory are proposed to be ultra-high performance precast concrete.
Mr. Johnson presented images comparing the approved revised concept and the final design. He said the hyphen between the old and new buildings would have simple, minimal details. Additional separation between the structures would be created through simplification of the glass wall, which would be pulled back slightly to create a terminating element in the composition. The skylight above the concourse has been removed since this space would receive adequate natural light from the north; the clerestory over the convening space has also been eliminated because this area would receive daylight from other sources.
Mr. Johnson said the exterior appearance has been simplified while still maintaining the desired spatial qualities on the interior. The line of flowering trees in front of NASM would be extended into the new garden, tying the old and new landscapes together. The stone landscape walls of the Learning Center would relate to the color of the stone used on NASM, and the guard booths at the corner of Jefferson Drive would be reclad with new materials. Finally, a signage system has been designed that would combine landscape and building signage. Signage in the landscape would have a metal surface, consistent with the signage of the Smithsonian; it would be used in combination with a stone monument sign at the north entry.
Mr. Rader said the color of the metal cladding is now proposed to be a warm titanium gray to complement NASM; the types of glass and the color of the mullions are unchanged from the concept design. The etched pattern has been eliminated from the design for the concrete in the Learning Courtyard, replaced by inlaid metal strips that would reinforce the spiral geometry. Detectable warning surfaces would be used to address accessibility concerns around the temporary installations in Astronomy Park.
Mr. Rader presented views of a tabletop scale mockup that was requested to test the aesthetic effect of the proposed lighting. It includes a single shading fin at an exaggerated width to show the minimum and maximum extent of the fins. He said the facade is proposed to have integrated lighting fixtures that would sit within a horizontal reveal. The fixture would uplight the projecting fins, which would extend horizontally from the facade to reinforce the idea of cosmic energy. There would be a gradient effect, with the lighting brighter where the fins are wider and dimmer where they are narrower.
Mr. Rader presented photographs showing the northern face of NASM, which uses uplighting on the stone facades and internal lighting in the glazed atria to emphasize its characteristic solid-to-void pattern at night. He said the project team had conducted informal nighttime site visits; the lighting consultant then conducted a technical analysis of existing monuments and buildings along the Mall. This analysis set the parameters of the lighting design and will ensure conformance with the National Capital Planning Commission’s 2019 lighting policy and framework guidelines, which recommend that lighting on the Mall should convey symbolic meaning, support the Capitol’s lighting hierarchy, enhance structures, and protect the night sky. He noted that the BLC’s target is well below the brightest level allowed for monument lighting and would therefore preserve the existing hierarchy.
Mr. Rader said the project team also analyzed how the lighting would perform at low power, full power, and gradient settings. A key feature of the proposed system is that it would be dimmable and would have variable color temperatures. The tests were meant to ensure that the proposed illumination would be only light the fins’ horizontal surfaces, not the vertical, and would meet the target brightness level. Once the lighting is in place, additional tests can be conducted to ensure that the temperature and output are sympathetic with its context.
Mr. Johnson said the design of the Astronomy Park has also been revised and clarified. The material palette for the observatory has been simplified to use the same material and color as the main building, and a stone wall would separate the building from a larger landscaped area. The entrance ramp on the south side has been adjusted to allow for the resolution of certain below-grade conditions. The continuation of the south facade on the second and third floors of the BLC would again terminate at an angle, away from the NASM.
Mr. Rader said the facade’s metal cladding system has been further developed. The reveals between the panels have been reduced from a width of one inch to three-quarters of an inch; the maximum horizontal projection of the fins would be six inches. He said bird deterrence measures would follow guidelines provided by Smithsonian Gardens; the selected option would add a wedge-shaped element on the upper side of the fin, creating a sloped surface to deter bird activity while maintaining the clarity of the facade design. The wedge would be set back from the edge of the projecting fin, and the fin’s horizontal dimension would obscure the wedge; the visible surfaces of the wedges would be painted in the same color as the rest of the metal facade system. In addition, only the wedge on lowest fin would be visible because most of the metal cladding would be at the second level and above. Sightline studies from the Eisenhower Memorial, south of the NASM, and from 4th Street suggest that the bird deterrent elements would be largely invisible and would not affect the appearance of the lighting.
Vice Chair Edwards thanked the design team for its presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Mr. Becker commended the design team for its efforts to simplify the design. He said the design has become clearer and stronger as a result of its simpler diagram, and this simplicity makes it more sympathetic with the original building. He encouraged continued simplification of the design as much as possible during the final documentation process. He observed that a green roof would be located atop the entrance extension near the observatory, and he suggested adding more green roof area wherever possible, such as on the main roof, to make the new building more environmentally sustainable. He also expressed concern that the glazed sections of the building could make it susceptible to solar heat gain, particularly from low sun in the late afternoon, and he asked if an energy model had been completed to assess how much energy would be needed to provide air conditioning for this space. He suggested there may be a particular type of glass, or a refinement in the amount of glass, that would reduce the building’s energy use. He asked if the Smithsonian sets energy goals that this building would need to achieve.\
Ms. Bond responded that the Smithsonian is pursuing a LEED rating for this building. She noted that the design of the north elevation includes an integrated shade structure, and that the design of the facades was informed by an energy model as well as by the pattern of solid-to-void seen on the NASM. Mr. Rader said the project is targeting a LEED Gold rating; energy models were conducted at multiple points throughout the design process to ensure the targets for this rating were being met. A high-performance glass was selected, and a darker-colored glass is proposed for the south and east facades to reduce solar heat gain, while a lighter-colored glass has been selected for the north elevation of the spiral concourse, which will have more diffuse indirect light. Mr. Johnson added that the design process for the north facade began by determining its orientation and then proceeded to development of energy models and glass selection. Mr. Becker asked if any onsite renewable energy source, such as integrated solar, is proposed; Mr. Rader said this is not proposed.
Mr. Cook asked if interior shades are proposed. Mr. Johnson said the west-facing section of the north facade would have exterior horizontal fins for solar protection; as the facade curves from west to east, the fins would become increasingly dense. Mr. Cook emphasized that any other potential shading should be on the exterior. Regarding the proposed signage, he observed that the design follows the standards of the Smithsonian Institution. However, he noted that the entire building is curved to reflect the orbiting of the planets, but the single monument sign proposed to identify the building looks very static. He asked if other signage options had been explored, such as an adjustment of the form and location of the monument sign or engraving the facility’s name on the site wall.
Mr. Rader said that other options had been explored, including engraving the name into a site wall; however, as the NASM signage is also engraved into stone walls, it was decided to keep NASM signs at the top the of the existing signage hierarchy. In addition, because the Bezos Learning Center would not be a primary entrance into the museum, it was determined that it would be better to let its sign recede. Mr. Johnson said this would be consistent with the other Smithsonian buildings on the Mall. Mr. Rader noted that the design has some slight variations from other signs, including its color and font. Mr. Cook asked if the proposed sign would sit on top of the wall or be set back. Mr. Rader said it would sit in the landscape independent of the wall. Mr. Cook emphasized that the sign seems out of place, located at the point where people are entering the BLC area from the Mall, and suggested further study of this element.
Ms. Delplace agreed that the monument sign seems out of place, and that both its form and location appear very jarring. Overall, she said the project is tremendously successful, and she congratulated the team on its further simplification of the forms since the previous presentation; however, the sign stands out as something that could use further study.
Vice Chair Edwards noted that there appears to be a consensus to approve the final design. Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission members are supportive of the design, but that they are suggesting further study of the signage; this could be included as a condition of any approval action. He also expressed appreciation on behalf of the staff for the productive consultation process and the continuous improvement of the design.
Mr. Cook offered a motion to approve the final design, with the condition that the signage be studied further. Upon a second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission adopted this action. Secretary Luebke said the staff would coordinate any outstanding issues, including the review of final mockups, with the project team.
D. U.S. Department of Defense
1.CFA 18/JUN/25-3, Pentagon Reservation & National 9/11 PentagonMemorial, Columbia Pike and N. Rotary Road, Arlington, VA. New commercial vehicle inspection and restroom facility. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposed replacement of two temporary facilities at the southwest corner of the Pentagon complex; both projects are sited within the long, narrow area between the Washington Boulevard highway to the west, the 9/11 Pentagon Memorial to the north and east, and a large parking lot to the southeast.
Secretary Luebke said that the first project’s scope is to construct a new vehicle inspection facility, which screens vehicles entering the service driveway that leads to the delivery area on the north side of the Pentagon. The existing vaulted canvas canopy structure and two guard booths would be removed; the new facility would include a permanent pre-engineered flat-roof canopy at approximately the same location with a slightly wider span, along with a new support building containing a control booth, work area, and kennel for the inspection dogs. The exterior material would be precast concrete panels with a gray color to match the Pentagon’s exterior; the facade system would have a strongly defined grid pattern with distinct reveals between the panels. The second project’s scope is to construct a new public restroom building, intended for visitors to the adjacent memorial; the nearby temporary restroom structure would be removed. The small rectangular building would have a skylit projection to shelter the entrances; the primary exterior material would be fiber-cement panels with a grid pattern and reveal strips. He noted that the staff has had no significant consultation with project team, and he introduced architect Jean O’Toole of Dewberry to present the proposal.
Ms. O’Toole said she serves as project manager for the design phase, and Dewberry is the architect of record; engineering is also provided by Dewberry, along with structural and geotechnical consulting firms. Other project team members include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Pentagon’s Washington Headquarters Services. She noted that this design-build project is being developed from an earlier conceptual design by HDR, dated November 2021; in June 2023, the company TMG invited Dewberry to join in bidding for the design-build contract, which was awarded in October 2024. She said a previous proposal for the vehicle inspection facility, then titled the Secure Access Lane Remote Screening Facility, was approved by the Commission in 2013 [project number CFA 19/SEP/13-f]; Secretary Luebke noted that this earlier approval has expired.
Ms. O’Toole presented the context and location for the proposal, with the eastern end of Columbia Pike forming the southwest boundary of the project area at its interchange with Washington Boulevard. She indicated the service driveway for deliveries, extending north from Columbia Pike; the driveway’s existing fabric canopy and inspection lanes, as well as the adjacent prefabricated guard booths, would be replaced by the proposed inspection facility. She also indicated the existing bicycle and pedestrian trails that would remain along the east and west sides of the project area, adjacent to the memorial and the highway. The approach walk to the memorial includes stone entry signs and benches; security fencing separates the public area of the memorial and bicycle trails from the Pentagon’s service driveway and vehicle inspection facility.
Ms. O’Toole said the proposed 2,800-square-foot building would contain operational and support space, and the kennel wing would open to an outdoor space at the rear. The proposed canopy would extend across the three inspection lanes and part of the new building, providing weather protection for the guards. She said the extent of the building and canopy are consistent with the design-build bidding documents, including the flat roof, the parapet walls, and the varied heights of the building volumes. A rooftop mechanical unit would be located above the kennel, the height of which is still being coordinated with the engineers. She presented the elevations, noting that the precast concrete veneer is intended to match the Pentagon’s exterior color; this surface material would be used for the building and for the canopy’s fascia and support columns. Windows would provide sightlines from the guards’ work areas, and clerestory windows would be located at the locker rooms and along the kennel’s hallway; she said other areas of the building do not require windows. She presented axonometric and perspective views to illustrate the relationship between the building, canopy, and inspection lanes.
Ms. O’Toole said the new 1,100-square-foot restroom building for visitors to the memorial would have men’s and women’s areas, with a small equipment room and louvered equipment area projecting at the rear; a solid screening wall in front of the building would shield the two public entrance doors. Awning windows would be provided at the side and rear of each restroom. Sloped polycarbonate skylight panels would span over the entrances between the main building volume and the screening wall. The facade patterning would be similar to the vehicle inspection facility but with a different material—fiber-cement siding panels separated by aluminum reveal strips, and metal coping at the top of the walls. She said the design of the restroom building is consistent with the bidding documents.
Ms. O’Toole said the bidding documents included only a minimal landscape design for the vehicle inspection area, and the minimal approach is preferable for security in order to allow for open sightlines. She said the proposed landscape includes two stormwater management areas.
Vice Chair Edwards invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker asked about the relationship between the vehicle inspection canopy and the experience of visitors to the memorial, observing that the large canopy structure may dominate the setting as visitors arrive; he asked if consideration has been given to screening the canopy or making it less prominent such as by depressing it into the ground. He said the grid pattern draws additional attention to the canopy, which is part of a functional facility for commercial vehicles but not a main entrance for the visiting public. He suggested that making the joints the same color as the panels could give the canopy a more monolithic appearance, which would be preferable. Commenting that the canopy appears to extend beyond the service driveway, he suggested consideration of reducing its extent, which could also reduce the cost. He noted that the Commission and the staff have not previously commented on the design, which seems to be driven by the bidding documents from the design-build contract instead of by an architect’s design process.
Ms. O’Toole responded that the Department of Defense has specified a clear height of nineteen feet beneath the canopy; she offered to inquire whether a lower height would be acceptable. Mr. Becker suggested lowering the driving surface by perhaps ten feet in order to reduce the canopy structure’s large appearance. Ms. O’Toole said this could be studied with the project team’s contractor and civil engineers. She also agreed to work with precast concrete experts to study the geometry, joint patterns, and joint material to achieve a more monolithic appearance, and to consider more carefully the potential for screening and the visual impact of the canopy structure on the experience of visiting the memorial. She noted that the proximity and prominence of the existing temporary canopy is apparent in the presented photographs.
Ms. Delplace said that the proposed exterior grid system would fight against the simplicity of the Pentagon, and the light gray color would give the new construction added prominence. She suggested consideration of a darker color, different from the Pentagon’s exterior, and a simplified appearance without emphasis on the joints between panels. She recommended treating the entire form of the vehicle inspection facility, including the canopy, as a single composition; she also expressed support for Mr. Becker’s suggestions on reducing the canopy’s apparent height and visual prominence. She observed that the bidding documents from the design-build contract are constraining the design, but the process nonetheless allows for creative solutions in an aesthetically satisfactory manner, such as by using the panel system while refining its color and detailing.
Mr. Cook expressed support for the comments of the other Commission members. He acknowledged the utilitarian purpose of these facilities but questioned whether their appearance needs to be so utilitarian. He recommended greater sensitivity to the memorial context, and he discouraged the apparent effect of these structures calling attention to themselves. He suggested careful study of the materials and detailing, with consideration of the simplicity and quietness of the Pentagon and the proportions of its stone exterior. Observing that the two proposed buildings would use two different exterior materials, he suggested consideration of using a single material. In addition to these broad design issues, he questioned the layout of the restroom building, observing that the men’s room would provide more fixtures than the women’s room. In summary, he encouraged the project team to consult with the Commission staff in resolving these design issues.
Mr. Lenihan acknowledged the project’s requirements and design parameters, but he agreed with the other Commission members that the proposed structures should be better integrated into the landscape; for example, the use of berms could reduce the apparent scale while still allowing for the needed sightlines, and a green roof could be considered. He suggested selecting exterior materials that fit into the landscape, and he agreed with the suggestion to consider using a single exterior material for both facilities.
Mr. Becker suggested treating the facility as more of a landscape feature, such as by directing vehicles into a sunken roadway with a green roof, and perhaps the only other visible feature being a low wall around it. He said the design as proposed could be in any commercial or industrial area, without consideration of the context. The vehicle inspection facility could also be conceptualized as a landscape feature because it would not typically be experienced by pedestrians at close proximity; less architectural expression for this facility would probably be better.
Dr. Edwards observed that the presented views do not depict the potential queueing of vehicles as they await inspection; she said the presence of additional trucks could have a greater impact on the experience of the memorial’s visitors. She recommended further study of the location and appearance of delivery vehicle queueing, with consideration of additional landscape screening or other design measures as needed. Ms. O’Toole offered to discuss the queueing logistics with the client.
Mr. Cook expressed support for the suggestion to study a different choice for the exterior materials, and he said a metal system could also result in cost savings. He reiterated the request to consult with the Commission staff on this issue.
Secretary Luebke noted that the staff, if it had been consulted, would have suggested a metal exterior system in order to give a less heavy and imposing appearance than the proposed masonry grid system. He summarized that the Commission is not ready to approve the current concept submission, and he advised the project team to work with the staff to address the Commission’s comments. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
2. CFA 18/JUN/25-4, Joint Base Anacostia–Bolling, MacDill Boulevard and South Capitol Street, SW. Honor Guard Campus Area Development Plan (ADP). Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced a final submission for an Area Development Plan (ADP) prepared for the Honor Guard Campus on Joint Base Anacostia–Bolling (JBAB). The campus is located on the eastern part of JBAB, which lies on the eastern bank of the Potomac River, at its confluence with the Anacostia River. The campus is located north of the MacDill Boulevard gate and partly within the Historic Bolling District, and includes administrative buildings, dormitories, storage, parking, and practice spaces. Its primary role is to serve as a dedicated area for the training and operational needs of this ceremonial Air Force unit; it will also accommodate the future Honor Guard for the Space Force. He explained that the ADP continues the Air Force’s comprehensive planning process within the context of the larger JBAB master plan, known as an Installation Development Plan (IDP). He noted that the Commission had reviewed and approved another component of the JBAB IDP, the Installation Facility Standards, in April 2024.
Mr. Luebke said the ADP is a detailed, long-range plan for the development of a consolidated campus with modernized facilities to support training effectiveness and to celebrate the guard’s heritage. The core of the campus is a centrally located open space with several surrounding elements, including parade grounds, viewing stands, and various buildings. The historic headquarters of Bolling Air Force Base, Building 20, visually defines the southern part of the campus, but it is not directly associated with the Honor Guard and is not part of this ADP.
Mr. Luebke said the applicants have developed various alternatives identified in the ADP, with a preferred alternative that combines elements of the other alternatives. This preferred composite alternative calls for a new high-bay training and fitness center, a new garage, a dormitory addition, and other renovations. There are some other existing renovations for buildings on the lawn and two larger-scale stand-alone projects in the site’s northern part. He asked Theresa Fuller, the portfolio optimization chief of the 11th Civil Engineer Squadron, and her colleague Tess Flemma to present the design.
Ms. Fuller noted that JBAB is constrained by the Potomac River to the west and public roadways to the east. She identified existing structures, noting that the facilities need additional space and modernization because of both the increasing numbers of personnel and advances in technology. She said the cross-functional team that developed the ADP included members of the Civil Engineer Squadron, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Air Force and Space Force Honor Guards—who live and train together on the campus—the Operations Group that has command over both Honor Guards, and the 11th Wing, which oversees most of the operations on JBAB. A multi-day charrette was held to identify priorities: new space, a consolidated campus, modernized facilities, and continuing to honor the site’s ceremonial heritage. Identified constraints include the recognition that existing facilities are over-capacity; parking limitations; balancing green space with development needs; and the limited availability of land.
Ms. Fuller identified several components of the Honor Guard Campus, including the practice lawn at the center, the ceremonial lawn where the Honor Guards perform, a dormitory building, the large assembly building known as Dickens Hall, and numerous surface parking lots. Constraints specific to this site include not only the existing roadways but also buildings that are not part of the Honor Guard Campus, the varying topography, and stormwater management requirements. The team developed three alternatives for the ADP and then created an option combining features of those three. A table for each alternative outlines how it would meet the goals. Alternative 1 is the most basic and least expensive, but it is also the least effective at reaching the goals. It would modernize the facilities and honor the heritage, but it would not meet the consolidation goal for efficiently supporting training and mission effectiveness. Alternative 2 would require more construction at a higher cost. It would modernize the facilities, honor the heritage, consolidate the campus, and effectively support training. She said Alternative 3 would be the most expensive and would have the most construction, therefore causing the most disruption, but it would meet all the identified goals.
Ms. Fuller said the preferred alternative is a hybrid of the other options. It meets all the goals but would cost less and involve less construction and disruption than Alternative 3. It would result in a completely consolidated Honor Guard Campus with improved traffic flow, enabling the campus to provide all key services. It would maintain the original campus layout, incorporate more green space into the design, include a dedicated ceremonial hall, and provide sufficient dormitory space. A new parking garage and the removal of some parking lots would free land that could be used for open space and stormwater management, although this would result in a net decrease of total parking area. She said the possibility of moving the technical school function to the Second Air Force location has been discussed, in which case Project G would no longer be necessary; this change would have a limited effect on the remainder of the plan, and it would create flexibility for alternative uses or improvements to Building 46. The preferred alternative also includes plans for how vehicles and pedestrians would move through the campus. She said the preferred alternative would maintain the aesthetic of the existing JBAB campus in designs for renovated and new buildings, including the parking garage.
Vice Chair Edwards thanked Ms. Fuller for the presentation and welcomed questions and comments from the Commission.
Mr. Lenihan asked about the project’s scope, observing that the first three alternatives propose different scales of impact, especially with regard to new construction and parking requirements. He asked whether the occupancy of the site would actually change with an increase in density, and he requested more information on what is driving the various projects and their projected scales. Ms. Fuller responded that occupancy would not significantly change despite the many projects proposed under some alternatives. She said the preferred alternative creates a framework plan, while each one of the construction items would then be its own separate project. The Air Force mandates the creation of IDPs to develop long-term strategies on how it will continue to maintain and replace its facilities. Occupancy of the Honor Guard Campus requires some construction to accommodate new personnel, including the Space Force Honor Guard. She said the plan is not intended to create a lot of extra space that will lead to increased occupancy; it is only intended to meet current needs.
Mr. Becker asked if the campus is used for practice or for ceremonies. Ms. Fuller said it is used for both, although primarily the Honor Guards, and occasionally the Air Force Band, use it for practice. Sometimes ceremonies are held here; for example, a ceremony for the change of base commander will soon be held on the ceremonial lawn, and both the Air Force Honor Guard and the Air Force Band will participate. Mr. Becker asked if any ceremonies are open to the public; Ms. Fuller said this happens only on rare occasions, and members of the public need special access to enter the base.
Ms. Delplace asked if there is a larger master plan that covers development for the base as a whole, including shared facilities and a broader vision for the future. Ms. Fuller said the many smaller ADP plans are combined to comprise a master plan, and she described the master plan as a binder containing the separate plans. There is also a facility space optimization plan, which evaluates the number of people authorized for each organization on the base, and how much square footage each person needs according to Air Force standards for the type of job performed. Ms. Delplace observed that the alternatives allocate a great deal of space to parking, and with the exception of Alternative 1, include a parking garage; she asked if there is a central facility for parking. Ms. Fuller said there is no central parking facility for the base; instead, there are small parking lots throughout. Some parking lots are for the use of a specific facility or organization, while others are shared or open to everybody. This particular ADP addresses parking for Honor Guard members and visitors. Ms. Delplace asked what percentage of Honor Guard members live on base. Ms. Fuller said almost all of them live on base; most members of the Honor Guard are first-term enlistees and live in the dorms, which are only for single enlisted personnel.
Ms. Delplace observed that many planning questions for JBAB are broader than what is addressed in this ADP. Although parking issues can be solved by stacking cars in a parking garage and consolidating lots, which would begin to address some of the issues with the Honor Guard area, she said it is difficult to judge all the issues raised without seeing a larger plan for the base. Ms. Flemma said the IDP is the overall comprehensive plan and includes all these different components, among them this particular ADP. She added that the issue of parking is complicated, as the National Capital Planning Commission requires a one-to-three parking ratio, even though there is no nearby Metrorail stop. She said the base would bring an information presentation to the Commission to provide the necessary background information. Ms. Delplace agreed that this background information would help provide the Commission with a better understanding of the planning process. She said that considering a base-wide parking plan with fewer cars would result in gaining space and perhaps open up the option for alternative transportation methods, which is especially beneficial if people are living on base.
Mr. Cook asked how long it would it take to execute the entire ADP, observing that it appears the hybrid alternative is favored because of the issue of cost. He expressed doubt that the cost of these items could be forecast many years into the future, and he said using cost as a metric for a plan that will take years or even decades to realize is problematic. Ms. Fuller agreed that the future costs are conjectural at this point. She said any construction project that costs more than $4 million is considered military construction, or MILCON, which is a budgetary item controlled by Congress. Normally, planning for a MILCON project must begin about seven years in advance, and thus any of these proposed projects would take a minimum of seven years to complete; they cannot all be done in one year. She said the Air Force competes with other military units for MILCON dollars by providing concepts, rough cost estimates, and other extensive documentation to Air Force management. All the military branches then combine their prioritized military construction lists, and eventually this list goes to Congress, where projects are funded as line items. She said an extremely expensive project might therefore be less competitive at the central level, and that this extensive process is a primary reason why smaller renovation projects are often the best option.
Mr. Cook said he is struggling to determine which alternative to recommend given this multiyear process, and that he is hesitant to use cost as a metric without more information. Ms. Fuller reiterated that implementation of Alternative 3 would be very disruptive to operations of the Honor Guard Campus, as it proposes the most impactful construction projects.
Ms. Delplace said the plan’s emphasis on cost-related phasing of construction projects also makes it difficult for the Commission to evaluate or endorse the various alternatives in the ADP, since the plan needs to address both current needs and those at least a decade into the future. She noted that the preferred alternative was described as meeting current needs, but if these needs change in seven years, it is unclear how the phasing would work.
Mr. Lenihan said the ADP reflects extensive space planning, but the evaluation of the alternatives seems to consider only four elements. He said that if the Commission is able to understand how the space requirements can be implemented at different time intervals, it can then help the project team decide which plan fulfills those requirements; having more background information would help the Commission to review this ADP.
Secretary Luebke summarized that the base-wide Installation Development Plan should be presented to the Commission before it considers the Area Development Plan, as it would be valuable to better understand the background information and values being promulgated by the ADP. He acknowledged that cost and disruption are important factors, but emphasized that understanding the larger values usually brought forth in a master plan—promoting historic character, operational efficiency, spatial definition—are essential to the Commission in advising the applicant. Ms. Flemma responded that some of these values had been mentioned in the presentation on the site’s historic character. Mr. Luebke said that while these were introductory framing elements, these values are not evident in the ADP or the developed alternatives.
Vice Chair Edwards agreed with Secretary Luebke’s summary that the Commission is not ready to act on the submission without additional information, and the discussion ended without a formal action.
E. U.S. General Services Administration
CFA 18/JUN/25-5, Southeast Federal Center (The Yards), Parcel P-3, bounded by 5th and River Streets, SE, and the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail. New three-story educational building. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced a concept design submission for a new three-story educational building on Parcel P-3 of the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC), now known as The Yards. The project is submitted for review in accordance with the 2005 Memorandum of Agreement between the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Commission for the redevelopment of this former federal property. This agreement defines the advisory role of the Commission as providing comments on private development up to the 35 percent concept design phase; no further Commission review is stipulated.
Mr. Luebke said Parcel P-3 is on the waterfront in the easternmost section of The Yards, bounded by the Navy Yard to the north and east, Yards Park to the west, and the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail to the south. The proposed building is for the Living Classrooms Foundation, an organization whose mission is to strengthen communities and inspire young people to achieve their potential through hands-on education and job training using urban, natural, and maritime resources as living classrooms. The building site is elevated to avoid flooding, and the building’s form and materiality is intended to reference the Navy Yard’s shipbuilding past; clad in thermally modified wood, its interlocking floor plates would create multilevel terraces and a cantilevered “prow” over the main building entry. The ground level contains a culinary training facility with office and educational areas on the upper floors. Planted landscape materials would include native tree species, grasses, and perennials. He asked Brett Banks, a project executive at GSA, to begin the presentation. Mr. Banks expressed appreciation for the staff’s assistance in developing the design for the Commission’s review, and he asked Teresa Martin from the Living Classrooms Foundation and Brian Pilot from Studios Architecture to present the design.
Ms. Martin said her organization has operated in Washington for twenty-five years. At the proposed waterfront facility, the organization’s “learning by doing” approach to education would incorporate additional maritime resources into its programming related to music and STEM subjects; it also currently operates several boats at the nearby Yards Marina. She said the organization also hopes to provide expanded adult workforce training in the new building.
Mr. Pilot described the proposed building site and its context. Per the SEFC Master Plan, Parcel P-3 is located in the historic zone and designated for a pavilion building; he indicated other pavilion sites, including the lumber shed on Parcel P-1 and the District Winery on Parcel P-2b. He said the form and materials of the existing pavilion buildings include horizontal volumes with large expressions of glass, dark metal, and wood, as specified in the master plan design guidelines for the historic zone. Parcel E is proposed to be the site of a new museum for the U.S. Navy, and the continuation of 5th Street, SW, down to the river will create the potential for cooperation between the foundation and the museum. Parcel Q, located adjacent to this parcel, is currently a surface parking lot and is designated for a building up to ninety feet tall. He said the proposed site and building access proposed for Parcel P-3 takes into account these potential new buildings and street extensions. He presented several images of the context, which includes the surface parking lot, the Navy Yard power plant, and a large mechanical yard.
Mr. Pilot said the context and site strongly influenced the proposed building design. He presented an 1862 lithograph of the Navy Yard that depicts several small wood buildings amid the larger structures, and this concept of a smaller unified wood structure set within a landscape, as well as the prow of a ship, served as inspiration for the design. The design also considers the master plan design guidelines, which emphasize strong horizontality, transparency, open views to the water, and a character that evokes the industrial and maritime history of the site. He said the conceptual parti—a cohesive pavilion composed of interlocking volumes and shifting planes—is intended to evoke strong horizontality and to create unique geometries when seen from different perspectives. The corners of the first and second level volumes are pulled out and oriented to create the sense of a prow, as well as several outdoor spaces at each level. The location and arrangement of windows and vertical fins is also intended to bring dynamism to the facades.
Mr. Pilot said the new building would occupy sixty-five percent of the trapezoid-shaped site and contain approximately 17,000 square feet across three levels. The first level is at an elevation of about fourteen feet, which is outside the 500-year floodplain. The main entrance would be at the west, underneath the projecting prow of the second level. The first level would feature culinary and hospitality training spaces with a public-facing food service component, as well as support space for the marina-based programming. The open plan of the culinary program would open onto the plaza through retractable storefront doors along the south side, animating the building frontage and landscape along the riverwalk. The programs for adults and children would be separated, with the children’s programs primarily on the second level and adult programs located primarily on the third; the third level would also have space for fundraising and donor engagement, which is important to the non-profit organization. The penthouse enclosure for the elevator overrun and mechanical equipment would be approximately four feet tall; there would be no occupiable space on the roof. Due to security concerns related to the site’s proximity to the Navy Yard, there would be few windows facing north and east.
Mr. Pilot said the building would be clad with thermally modified wood intended to weather to a steely gray color. He said the wood cladding, and its ability to develop a weathered patina, resonates with the maritime environment and the materiality of the riverwalk. The fenestration would feature dark mullions and vertical fins in a gradient of navy-blue tones. Deciduous tree species would be planted along the south side of the site to provide passive cooling in the hotter months and allow for views to the river when the leaves are off. Interior window treatments would also reduce glare and solar heat gain.
Mr. Pilot said the proposed landscape draws on the design vocabulary established by the Yards Park to the west and the maritime themes developed in the building architecture. The grade differential between the riverwalk and the building entrance would be taken up by a stepped terrace similar to the lawn steps within Yards Park; the curbing and steps within the terrace would be “Carnelian” granite, and the site paving would be tinted concrete. Primary building access would be via stairs at the southwest corner of the site, with the accessible route beginning further north where the grade is more level. The planting palette would provide a biodiverse habitat with milkweed and grasses in accordance with National Capital Planning Commission’s pollinator best practices resource guide.
Vice Chair Edwards expressed appreciation for the thorough presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Mr. Cook expressed support for proposed program and the resolution of the design details, including the interlocking building volumes and the integration of the building program and site design. He asked if the proposed thermally modified wood has been used as a cladding material in a similar maritime setting in the region, as he wants to ensure its durability; Mr. Pilot responded that this could be researched further. Mr. Cook observed that the building has an extensive southern exposure and asked what methods beyond those presented would be used to mitigate glare and solar heat gain. Mr. Pilot said that in addition to trees and interior mechanical shades, sophisticated solar control glass would be explored; he noted that the project team is seeking a LEED Gold rating. Mr. Cook observed that the building is oriented to the water, and that the primary building access is via stairs close to the riverwalk; conversely, the barrier-free access point is further north and appears secondary and circuitous. He asked if a design with more parity between the stair and barrier-free routes had been studied. Mr. Pilot said the grade change presents a challenge, but that this is an important consideration and the issue can studied further; Mr. Cook encouraged the additional study of the issue.
Mr. Becker commended the design, which he characterized as both beautiful and logical, and he asked for more information on the proposed vertical fins. Mr. Pilot said the fins would be used wherever there are windows and would provide some measure of sun shading. Their location would alternate between the left and right side of the window groupings on the second and third levels to create a sense of movement, and the blue tones are intended to reference colors in the Living Classrooms logo. Mr. Becker advised that the fins would be less effective for shading on the south facade, and he recommended further consideration of how to control solar heat gain, as a building with this much direct sun exposure would require year-round conditioning. He also suggested consideration of additional sustainable energy systems, such as solar panels, additional green roof areas, and solar canopies on the south facade; these suggestions would also help achieve the desired environmental performance rating. Mr. Pilot said there is limited roof space, and there is some concern about the visibility of rooftop appurtenances, but that these suggestions could be considered further.
Ms. Delplace said the building and landscape are quite appropriate for the Anacostia waterfront, and that she is happy this organization will be establishing a permanent presence in this part of the city, which is quite vibrant and would be well served by the proposed programming.
Vice Chair Edwards summarized that the project has received positive feedback from the Commission, and she suggested a consensus to approve the concept design. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission adopted this action. Secretary Luebke said that given the terms of the MOU, this will likely be the last time the Commission will see the project, and he said the staff would be available to follow up with the applicant team regarding the Commission’s comments.
F. D.C. Department of General Services
1.CFA 18/JUN/25-6, Brent Elementary School, 301 North Carolina Avenue, SE. New building and landscape. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 21/NOV/24-6)
Secretary Luebke introduced a revised concept proposal for the replacement of Brent Elementary School, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS). The site is located across 3rd Street from Folger Park in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. The Commission approved a concept design in November 2024 that proposed a cladding system of ultra-high performance cementitious panels, with an entrance composed of metal panels and glass. The D.C. Government subsequently initiated a special public engagement process in response to community feedback regarding some of the proposed architectural features. The community expressed a preference for brick cladding instead of the previously approved cementitious rain screen system, as well as a new facade composition. The proposed revised facades consist of vertical sections of brick in alternating color tones, separated by narrow reveals; this is intended to reference the surrounding rowhouse context of Capitol Hill. The main entrance would retain the curtainwall glazing and vertical metal panels, but the color panels would be limited to gray and three shades of green. For the landscape, the design team has included playground areas separated by age group, new parking and hardcourt areas in the southeast part of the site, and a new outdoor classroom. Mr. Luebke introduced Maggie Grady, a project manager with DGS, who then asked architects Scott Prisco and Haidi Liu of DLR Group to present the revised concept design.
Mr. Prisco said the new building is subject to several constraints, including a height limit of forty feet, a maximum lot coverage of sixty percent, a minimum pervious surface area of fifty percent, and the zone of influence of the nearby Metrorail tunnel; the project is also required to meet net-zero energy performance goals.
Ms. Liu said the current proposal maintains the location, height, and massing of the previously approved design. The landscape is also consistent with the previous version, with playgrounds on the north side and at the rear, a parking lot and hardcourt at the southeast, and the main entrance at the corner of North Carolina Avenue and 3rd Street; a new outdoor classroom is now proposed on the North Carolina Avenue frontage. She said the material palette includes brick on the classroom wings, and metal panel and glass curtainwall where there are transitions to the shared program areas, such as the library, lunchroom, and the art room. Other program areas include the gymnasium on the ground level, early childhood program space on the first and second levels, and the classrooms on the third floor.
Ms. Liu presented the revised facade designs, which would be composed of alternating sections of brick in two different colors—a pinkish red and a darker red—set in a running bond pattern and separated by narrow horizontal and vertical reveals of gray brick. The colored metal panels at the corner are intended provide a sense of movement. She indicated the planted areas that would buffer the play areas from North Carolina Avenue.
Vice Chair Edwards thanked the project team for its presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Mr. Becker asked for more information on the proposed sustainable design strategies, given the embodied energy that would be lost when the existing building is demolished. Mr. Prisco said several sustainability measures are proposed: a material recycling process as part of the demolition of the existing building; energy modeling to mitigate the impact of solar heat gain on the building; shades for the south facing windows; more efficient mechanical systems; green roof areas; on-site geothermal wells; and photovoltaic panels.
Mr. Becker noted the Commission’s enthusiasm for the previous design, and he suggested exploring how to incorporate the community’s preferences into the project while maintaining the strong geometry of the initial proposal. He said the previous design was preferable as the two facade materials—cementitious panels on the wings and metal panels at the corner entrance—were used in a vertical format and unified the building. He said the revised design appears to relate more to rowhouses by using differentiated brick areas for each of the classroom areas; however, in doing so, the continuity seen in the earlier proposal has been lost. He therefore recommended reintroducing a unifying design approach, such as the vertical orientation of the cladding from the previous version. Mars Eagleson, a community outreach coordinator from DCPS, said the Chancellor’s Office directed its staff to survey the community regarding the school’s design, including questions of material and color. The survey results included a strong preference for brick instead of the cementitious panels; darker brick colors; and the use of green for the metal panels, since green is the school color. He emphasized that this is not the standard engagement process and is not intended to set a precedent.
Mr. Cook said the effort to engage the public is commendable, but the previous design was better resolved. He said the slight offset of the vertical alignments of the brick panels adds complexity to the facade. While this may serve to reference the surrounding rowhouse context, it makes the facade unnecessarily complicated. He noted the previous design established a primary facade and then created a special moment at the corner entrance, while the current proposal has shifting and changing color panels, infill panels, as well as the special inflection at the entrance.
Ms. Liu responded that the design team has tried to incorporate the vertical reading of the rowhouses into the facade to create a regular rhythm. Mr. Prisco added that design team studied how rowhouses appear in perspective when viewed down the street, and that their vertical elements create a dynamic visual movement rather than a static appearance. Mr. Cook said the offset vertical reveals appear to be a drawing error rather than a deliberate design decision, and he recommended simplifying the facades to be more consistent with the previously approved concept design.
Ms. Delplace noted that rowhouses in Capitol Hill were historically developed in groups of four to six at a time, but that she does not perceive even a single rowhouse in the facade design because of its horizontal emphasis. She noted that the character of a civic building evident in the previous design has been lost with the revised concept, and she supported the suggestions to simplify the facade designs to help differentiate the school’s civic character from the residential context.
Mr. Becker commented that there is a dissonance between the traditional brick coursing and the more abstract facade design. He said the previous design was more convincing architecturally and that he supports simplifying the facade design. Mr. Cook agreed that the facades are fussy and should be simplified.
Secretary Luebke asked if the community survey had incorporated the current design iteration; Mr. Grady said the community had seen an earlier version of the design with brick cladding, but not the version that is before the Commission. He added that the community has been notified of the current engagement with the Commission and the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board. Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission is supportive of the change from cementitious panels to brick cladding, but that it recommends further refinement of the facade design. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
2. CFA 18/JUN/25-7, Fort Davis Recreation Center, 1400 41st Street, SE. New building and landscape improvements. Final. (Previous: CFA 16/JAN/25-3)
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:39 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary