The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:00 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., Chairman
Hon. James C. McCrery II, Vice Chairman
Hon. Mary Anne Carter
Hon. Roger Kimball
Hon. Matthew Taylor
Staff present:
Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Jessica Amos
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Administration of oath of office to Mary Anne Carter, Rodney Mims Cook Jr., Roger Kimball, James C. McCrery II, and Matthew Taylor. Secretary Luebke announced that this month President Donald J. Trump appointed five new members to serve four-year terms on the Commission, filling five of the seven vacancies. Secretary Luebke said he would begin the meeting until the new members were sworn in and new leadership was designated. He noted that the Commission had not met since September 2025, due to the federal government shutdown in October and November 2025, and that several months of backlogged cases needed to be addressed.
Secretary Luebke introduced the five new appointees in alphabetical order, beginning with Mary Anne Carter, the current chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). He summarized her work as chairman of the NEA during President Trump’s first term, during which time she advanced the expansion of Creative Forces, a creative arts therapy initiative supporting service members and veterans recovering from post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, and other psychological health conditions.
Mr. Luebke introduced Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., who is the founder and president of the National Monuments Foundation, an organization focused on the development of new civic and historic projects around the world. He added that Mr. Cook is a founding trustee of the Prince of Wales Institute of Architecture, and that he led the design and construction of the Millennium Gate Museum in Atlanta, Georgia.
Mr. Luebke introduced Roger Kimball, the editor and publisher of The New Criterion, and president and publisher of Encounter Books. He said Mr. Kimball has published many books and articles calling for the restoration and reclamation of American culture, institutions, and art, and has contributed to and edited numerous books, journals, and newspapers while lecturing widely on topics of art, culture, society, and politics.
Mr. Luebke said that the fourth appointee, James C. McCrery, is a tenured professor at the Catholic University of America School of Architecture and Allied Arts, where he is the founding director of the concentration in Classical Architecture and Urbanism at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. He added that Mr. McCrery is the founding principal of McCrery Architects, a Washington, D.C.-based practice specializing in civic, religious, and institutional projects.
Finally, Mr. Luebke introduced Matthew Taylor, a conceptual artist, filmmaker, and political messaging strategist whose efforts span sculpture, dance, fashion, film, performance, and computational media. He said Mr. Taylor is the founder, director, writer, and creative executive of Lightspeed Pictures and Electrolift Creative; has written, directed, and produced numerous films; and currently serves as a senior advisor at the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Secretary Luebke then administered the oath of office to the new members and welcomed them to the Commission. He noted that two of these members, Mr. Cook and Mr. McCrery, had served previously on the Commission.
B. Election of new leadership. Secretary Luebke said the Commission now has a quorum of seated members, and the next item of business is to elect the Commission’s leadership, beginning with the chairman. He said the Commission of Fine Arts has existed since 1910 and has had only 12 chairs over the past 116 years. He asked the Commission members if there was a motion to propose a candidate for chairmanship. Mr. McCrery said it was an honor to be on the Commission once again and to serve with some his fellow commission members for the first time, and he thanked President Trump for entrusting all of them to the Commission. He recounted that in June of 2021, following President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s unprecedented removal of four sitting members of the Commission—Perry Guillot, Steven Spandle, and Chas Fagan, along with the Commission’s then-chairman, Justin Shubow—he had the honor of nominating the Commission’s then-vice chairman, Mr. Rodney Mims Cook, to the chairmanship of the Commission. He said the four new Commission members appointed by President Biden instead elected two of their number to the positions of chairman and vice chairman, thereby removing Mr. Cook from the vice chairmanship, a position in which he had served since his appointment in January 2021 by President Trump.
Mr. McCrery said it was therefore his honor to offer that nomination once more, and he formally nominated Mr. Cook to be the chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts. Upon a second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission elected Mr. Cook to be chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts. Chairman Cook noted that he is now the thirteenth chairman, as well as resident of the State of Georgia, which was originally the thirteenth colony.
Secretary Luebke asked Chairman Cook to preside over the meeting and to complete the election of the Commission’s leadership by calling for the nomination of a vice chairman.
Chairman Cook said he would like to nominate Mr. McCrery as vice chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts. He noted his previous service with him on the Commission, and said that he has known him for decades. He described Mr. McCrery as one of the greatest architects of our day, who knows Washington better than most and who can help the Commission navigate the challenges it will experience, as President Trump has a very ambitious plan for the District of Columbia as well as the world. He said the Commission needed to let the president do his job and, as best they can, keep his mind off matters the Commission can handle elegantly and beautifully, as the American people deserve for generations and further centuries into the future. Upon a second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission elected Mr. McCrery as vice chairman of the Commission. Vice Chairman McCrery said it was truly an honor to be elected to this position.
Chairman Cook said that he would like to recognize the work of Justin Shubow, who served as chairman of the Commission from January to June 2021. He said Mr. Shubow was a brilliant chairman of the Commission and was instrumental in writing the federal mandate for all United States buildings to be in a classical architectural style, a priority of the president. Chairman Cook said he would like to honor a few friends who have been lost in the past year, beginning with American businessman and philanthropist Richard Driehaus. He said Mr. Driehaus made some of the most consequential contributions to classical architecture in the modern era by restoring its legitimacy at a time when traditional design was widely dismissed in academic and professional circles. Through the creation of the Driehaus Prize, Mr. Driehaus established a prestigious international platform that honored living architects working in classical and traditional idioms, reframing these approaches as intellectually rigorous, culturally relevant, and essential to civic life. He said Mr. Driehaus challenged the dominance of Modernist orthodoxy and helped recreate and recenter beauty and human scale in architectural discourse, funding exhibitions and publications, and investing in institutions that trained architects in classical design methods, ensuring that traditional knowledge was passed to new generations. He said Mr. Driehaus’s work helped spark a global revival of classical architecture, influencing civic projects, urban planning, and monument design well into the twenty-first century.
Next, Mr. Cook cited the Luxembourg architect Leon Krier as one of the most influential theorists behind the revival of classical architecture and traditional urbanism in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. He said that, in contrast to Modernist planning that prioritized scale, zoning, separation, and automobile dependency, Mr. Krier forcefully argued for architecture rooted in human proportion, historical continuity, and civic meaning. Mr. Cook said Mr. Krier’s writings and drawings articulated a clear philosophical defense of classical architecture, not as nostalgia but as a living language capable of expressing order, beauty, and social coherence. He said by critiquing Modernism’s abstraction and alienation, Mr. Krier reestablished classical design as morally, culturally, and environmentally grounded.
Finally, Mr. Cook said American architect and educator Robert A.M. Stern left an enduring legacy in architecture by demonstrating that classical principles could remain intellectually serious, flexible, and relevant in the modern world. He said Mr. Stern bridged Modernism and tradition, showing that proportion, symmetry, and historical reference could coexist with contemporary needs and technologies. He said that rather than treating classical architecture as mere revivalism, Mr. Stern approached it as a living language, capable of adaptation, contextual response, and civic expression, thereby helping restore legitimacy to traditional design within mainstream architectural practice. He said that equally influential was Mr. Stern’s role as an educator and scholar, and that as dean of the Yale School of Architecture, he reshaped architectural education by fostering pluralism and welcoming classical and traditional approaches alongside Modernist and experimental work. He said Mr. Stern’s monumental scholarship on American architecture reframed the story of Modernism as one of continuity rather than rupture, and that Mr. Stern’s professional practice, teaching, and historical writing ensured that classical architecture remained a respected and viable foundation for civic, institutional, and residential design long after his passing.
Chairman Cook thanked the Secretary for allowing him to put this on the record, noting the loss of these great architects and educators over the past year, all of them close to many on the Commission.
C. Approval of the minutes of the 18 September meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the September 2025 meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. He acknowledged that the current Commission members were not part of that meeting, but that the minutes must still be approved for the record. Upon a motion by Mr. Taylor with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the minutes. He noted that the Commission posts the approved minutes on its website, and that they serve as a research tool for the future.
D. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 19 February, 19 March, and 16 April 2026. He noted that the Commission meets on the third Thursday of each month, with the exceptions of August and December.
E. Chairman’s approval of objects proposed for acquisition by the Freer Gallery of Art. Secretary Luebke requested the chairman’s approval of several sets of objects proposed to be acquired into the permanent collection of the Smithsonian Institution–National Museum of Asian Art’s Freer Gallery of Art; the approval of the Commission’s chairman is required by a codicil to the will of Charles Lang Freer, the original benefactor of the gallery. Mr. Luebke reported that is it the chairman’s intention to approve the acquisition of the following items. The first group is a collection of 31 Japanese and Korean paintings, albums, and calligraphy from the sixteenth to twentieth centuries. He said these are offered as gifts from the collection of Mary and Cheney Cowles, whose collection would be the most significant addition to the museum’s collection of Japanese paintings and calligraphy since the original gift of Mr. Freer. He described the second group as four Chinese ceramic objects dating from the late eleventh through the sixteenth centuries, offered for donation by the collector Lois Raphling, including glazed stoneware bowls, a vase, and a censer with cover. He said that the last item is a Korean painted fan from the early eighteenth century proposed for purchase for the Freer’s permanent collection. He said the staff would follow up with the chairman to formally approve the acquisitions.
Chairman Cook asked for more information on the item proposed for purchase. Secretary Luebke said the museum will occasionally come across works that would be useful as part of its collection, that that whether purchased or donated, anything accessioned into the permanent collection needs to be approved by the chairman of the Commission. Mr. Cook asked if the Commission needed to vote on the acquisitions; Mr. Luebke said only the approval of the chairman is required. Mr. Cook said that he is a Chinese ink painter of reasonable note, having been taught by a great master, Professor I-Hsiung Ju, at Washington and Lee University. He said the Freer Gallery holds several works by Professor Ju, and he offered to show them to the Secretary on a future visit. Mr. Luebke said he welcomed the opportunity, and he noted that Commission members have occasionally visited the museum to inspect items proposed for acquisition; Mr. Cook said he would like to do this.
F. Staff departures: Tony Simon, Kay Fanning, and Mary Catherine Bogard. Secretary Luebke reported that there have been several departures from the Commission’s small staff over the past months. He said these include architect and planner Tony Simon, who retired in August after serving at the Commission for about twenty years, and before that, at the National Capital Planning Commission. He said Mr. Simon was invaluable in creating the monthly records of the Commission, as well as many other contributions on case work.
Mr. Luebke reported that Kay Fanning, who was the Commission’s historian, retired at the end of this past November. She had been with the Commission since 2008 and was a primary researcher and writer for many of the Commission’s publications, most recently the book American Shrines: The Architecture of Presidential Commemoration, released in March 2025. He said the Commission would miss her and her long record of scholarly work as well.
Mr. Luebke said that Mary Catherine Bogard, a historic preservation specialist working on projects in the Old Georgetown Act jurisdiction, left the Commission in December for a position with Fairfax County, Virginia. He said that relatedly, a position announcement for a new historic preservation specialist would be posted to the usajobs.gov website, as Georgetown represents the largest caseload for the Commission.
Secretary Luebke stated the Commission would miss these dedicated staff members and their valuable contributions very much.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of each document were circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting. He noted that the unusual number of cases is the result of the Commission not meeting since September 2025; in addition, the Old Georgetown Board did not meet in October and November 2025 due to the federal government shutdown and therefore met twice in December to review the backlog of cases.
Appendix I – Government Submissions (Consent Calendar): Mr. Hart said that no changes have been made to the consent calendar, which includes 34 items. He also reported that the staff had completed the delegated final review for the Peace Corps Commemorative Park. Mr. McCrery said it would be good to see the current state of the Peace Corps project, noting its prominent location and potential interest for the new members of the Commission. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had previously delegated the final review to the staff, and that the staff had therefore already approved the project as directed. He said that while no Commission action is required at this time, he would be happy to show the final design to the Commission. Mr. McCrery accepted this explanation and withdrew his request to look at the project. Upon a motion by Mr. Kimball with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes 49 projects, representing cases received between October 2025 and January 2026; there are also two projects from the Shipstead-Luce jurisdiction on the meeting agenda. She said the recommendations for 18 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. Kimball, the Commission voted to approve the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix. (See agenda items II.G.1 and II.G.2 for additional Shipstead-Luce Act submissions.)
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Ms. Amos said the appendix includes 74 projects, representing cases from October through December 2025, and that there were no changes to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery, with second by Ms. Carter, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix. Secretary Luebke noted the Georgetown cases represent about half of all the projects reviewed by the Commission each year.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider item
II.G.1. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had identified this submission as one that could be approved without a presentation.
G. D.C. Department of General Services—Shipstead-Luce Act
1. SL 26-043, 2045 Parkside Drive, NW. New single-family residence. Concept.
Chairman Cook confirmed the consensus to approve the project without a presentation, and asked if Mr. McCrery, who is familiar with Washington, has any reservations approving the project; Mr. McCrery said he has no issues. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery to approve the concept design, the Commission voted to adopt this action.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.
B. Executive Office of the President / National Park Service
CFA 22/JAN/26-1, White House Complex, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. East Wing modernization and ballroom addition. Information presentation.
Secretary Luebke introduced the first case, an information presentation submitted by the Executive Office of the President on behalf of the National Park Service (NPS), for a proposed new addition to the White House complex to accommodate a ballroom and associated support services. He said the addition would replace the East Wing, which was a 15,000-square-foot building connected to the main Federal-era Residence via a narrow hyphen and colonnade at the ground level. He said the East Wing, which was demolished in October 2025, housed the offices of the First Lady on the upper level, security and visitor management at the ground level, and other secure areas below. He noted that the original East Wing had been built in 1902 as a smaller one-story building in a Beaux-Arts Tuscan order designed by Charles Follen McKim of the firm McKim, Mead & White, who was also a member of the McMillan Commission; the building was enlarged in the early 1940s in a similar style by the architect Lorenzo Winslow, who later designed the complete reconstruction of the White House interior in the early 1950s. He said that together with the West Wing, the East Wing contributed to the five-part composition of the White House complex, with the largest center block in the Corinthian order connected by low colonnaded hyphens to the flanking wings.
Secretary Luebke said the current proposal is to construct a 90,000-square-foot addition to the Residence to accommodate a ballroom for roughly 1,000 attendees. He said the ballroom itself, estimated to be approximately 110 by 200 feet, would have interior ceilings of around forty feet and would be situated a story above the entrance grade on East Executive Avenue, NW, but at the same level as the White House state rooms. He said it would be connected to the residence via a new colonnaded hyphen leading directly into the East Room through the historic east facade. He noted that the top of the proposed balustrade would be as high as the historic residence, and that the building would appear to have an additional story on the east side as the land slopes southward.
Before the start of the presentation, Mr. McCrery said that in conformance with a longstanding practice at the Commission, he is obligated to recuse himself from the discussion of the project, as well as from any action in this or future meetings regarding this particular project. [Mr. McCrery had developed initial designs for a ballroom addition to the White House.]
Secretary Luebke introduced Joshua Fisher, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Management and Administration of the Executive Office of the President. Mr. Fisher thanked the Commission members for the opportunity to speak before a body whose mission has been, for more than a century, safeguarding the artistic and architectural dignity of the nation’s most symbolic spaces. He said the White House is not simply a residence or an office building but is a living civic artifact, an evolving expression of American diplomacy, and every space within it carries both functional purpose and symbolic weight. He said that among these spaces, a White House ballroom will hold a unique and essential role, and that the need for a ballroom is not a modern indulgence but a necessity.
Mr. Fisher said the demands placed on the White House far exceed what its original designers could have anticipated, and that state dinners, diplomatic ceremonies, and cultural events require spaces to accommodate larger audiences while maintaining extraordinary stateliness and enhanced security in a treasured space. He said that for too long, temporary structures such as tents have been erected on the South Lawn that are unsightly, unsafe, destructive to the turf, and are disconnected from the architecture of the mansion itself. He said that a permanent White House ballroom, properly conceived, would address these challenges.
Mr. Fisher said the Commission should consider not only whether a ballroom is useful, but whether it can be beautiful, appropriate, and worthy of its setting, and he said that that it can be and will be. He said that the project architect, Shalom Baranes of Shalom Baranes Associates, would go into more detail regarding the architecture, but he said that the proposed ballroom is not merely a space for celebration but a stage for democracy—where alliances will be honored, where cultural achievements will be recognized, and where the United States will present itself to the world. He said it will be designed not as an imposition but as a respectful extension, one that speaks the same architectural language. He emphasized that a thoughtfully designed White House ballroom will affirm that the United States continues to invest in excellence, permanence, and cultural stewardship rather than short-term solutions. He concluded that this is not a departure from tradition but a fidelity to it, and that the White House ballroom will become not just a functional and necessary space but a lasting contribution to the artistic legacy of the nation.
Mr. Baranes thanked the Commission for the opportunity to appear before them, and he thanked Mr. McCrery in particular for his comments and for all the work he had done to date on this project. He said he would provide a high-level overview of the project and would follow up with a more detailed and fully developed submission at the Commission’s next meeting in February. He explained that his firm joined the project team in early November following schematic design work undertaken by Mr. McCrery’s firm. He said the earlier phase, which spanned much of 2025, involved a comprehensive evaluation of programmatic needs and design alternatives, including multiple massing configurations and elevational studies that were well documented with a series of drawings and both virtual and physical models. He said his firm had been fortunate to be able to work with those materials as they moved the project forward.
Mr. Baranes said that following the project’s transition to his firm about two and a half months ago, the design team continued to evaluate various sizes and configurations for the project. He noted that in late November, the decision was made to terminate the exploration of options for increasing the size of the project and to instead proceed with modifying and further developing one of the earlier schemes developed by Mr. McCrery.
Mr. Baranes said the design being developed is calibrated to respect key contextual relationships. He said the addition’s cornice would align with and would not exceed the cornice height of the White House; equally important, the building’s primary facade, facing Pennsylvania Avenue, would be set back approximately ten and a half feet from the White House’s primary north facade. He said these measures are essential to maintaining the visual primacy of the White House. He said the proposed program includes a ballroom of approximately 22,000 square feet to accommodate approximately 1,000 guests for a formal seated dinner. He said the total area of the two visible, above-ground stories, including the colonnaded hyphen and the ballroom structure, is just over 89,000 square feet; below the ballroom are various programmatic functions that are included in the total square footage.
Mr. Baranes said one could generously describe the current functioning of the White House support areas, such as loading areas, general deliveries, waste handling, and food service, as labyrinthine in character. He said these conditions reflect incremental adaptations over time and have resulted in ongoing operational stress on the historic structure. He explained that the proposed modernization seeks to rationalize these functions in a manner that will relieve this operational stress by increasing connectivity, efficiency, and security, while at the same time improving the White House experience and allowing the structure to age more gracefully over time.
Mr. Baranes said the focus over the past two months has been on developing interior spaces, coordinating structural and mechanical systems, revising some of the exterior elevations, developing a roof over the south terrace of the ballroom, and further developing the exterior details. He noted that this scheme requires a two-story colonnade connecting the East Room of the White House to the new ballroom, and they believe it is appropriate to evaluate this condition within the context of the broader White House campus.
Mr. Baranes said the White House is considering a modest one-story addition to the West Wing colonnade that would serve to extend a sense of symmetry around the Residence. He emphasized that they had not yet produced a single sketch on this addition and that some preliminary structural assessments were underway; the team will decide whether to proceed with that project when the assessments are complete. He said this potential project will be considered as part of a future overall planning framework that will be presented at subsequent meeting. Mr. Baranes presented the overall site plan, showing Pennsylvania Avenue at the north and E Street at the south, with the Treasury Building on the east and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) on the west, framing the White House. He indicated the proposed colonnade to the east of the main White House block, along with the larger ballroom structure, as well as a terrace along three sides of this composition. He said the terrace would start at the east wall of the White House; run along the south side of the colonnade, with a monumental stair leading down to grade; and turn south, continuing along the west face of the ballroom, terminating in a second monumental stair that continues down to grade. This monumental stair is a feature that was developed by his firm; halfway down, this stair would land at the level of the south portico, which would also have a monumental stair leading down to grade. He noted that the long terrace and stair on the west side of the ballroom is required as means of egress to meet life safety regulations. He added that there is a fairly dense grove of trees on the south side of the ballroom site, as well as on the north side facing Pennsylvania Avenue, that would be shown in more detail at the next meeting when presenting viewshed studies.
Mr. Baranes presented the floor plans, noting that the large space on the upper level is the ballroom, which would be accessed at two different levels from both the east and west. He said that from the west, there would be a connection from the East Room of the White House through a new double door, then along a passageway directly into a foyer that leads into the ballroom. He noted that the south side of the hyphen would be glazed, while the north side, facing Pennsylvania Avenue, contains support and restroom facilities located behind a series of blind niches. He said that guests enter the ballroom from the lower level via a set of stairs on the east side that would lead into a foyer, with a grand stair leading up to the ballroom level. At the lower level, he indicated the large space that would house a commercial kitchen and service areas for the ballroom and other events in the White House. Across the corridor from the kitchen would be the First Lady’s suite of offices. The lower level of the hyphen would contain another passageway leading into the White House, as well as a new movie theater to replace the one that was in the demolished East Wing.
Mr. Baranes presented the north and south elevations, noting that the landscape is omitted from the drawings to give a clear view of the scale of the various parts of the overall complex. He emphasized that the balustrade and cornice of the ballroom addition would align exactly with the balustrade and cornice of the White House. He explained that in Washington, D.C., heights of buildings are normally measured from the center of the building or overall complex; therefore, the White House is approximately 51 feet to the top of the balustrade on the north side. Due to the 18-to 20-foot differential in the grade between the north and south sides of the site, both the White House and proposed ballroom would essentially be one story taller than what appears on the north elevation.
Mr. Baranes said the most significant change his firm made to Mr. McCrery’s earlier scheme is the addition of the pedimented portico over the terrace on the south side of the ballroom. He said the ballroom would project almost 300 feet past the primary south facade of the White House. While they appear almost coplanar in the elevation drawings, there is almost a full football field of distance between the elevation of the White House and the portico elevation. He indicated the rear facade of the two-story hyphen, along with the monumental stair on the south side leading down to grade.
Mr. Baranes said the east facade would have a large entrance portico featuring eight Corinthian columns, with eight arched windows to the left defining the center of the ballroom; visible at the far left of the drawings is the south portico. He said the west elevation would have the same eight arched windows arranged symmetrically, along with a series of windows set within a rusticated base that would light the office suite for the First Lady. He noted that besides the addition of the portico on the south side, the other major change made by his firm was a reduction in the number of two-story arched windows, from thirteen to eight; they would also be wider than in the earlier scheme developed by Mr. McCrery. He then presented the north elevation with a schematic landscape to give a sense of the area between the public sidewalk and the proposed new building. He said that the lower, darker trees are the street trees, and the lighter transparent trees represent the mature trees that sit inside the fence line.
Mr. Baranes said three-dimensional drawings had not yet been developed, acknowledging this is very unusual for a project such as this. He said the project team is very close to completing a virtual three-dimensional model that will show close-up views and details of the entire addition within the existing context. Also being developed is a series of viewshed study images that include the landscape.
Secretary Luebke said the Commission had received approximately thirty-four public comment letters, almost all of which could be characterized as critical of the project. He summarized one of the more positive comment letters, which states that the design of the ballroom is beautiful and the style seems appropriate, but that its scale appears oversized, making it dominate the main structure. He read another characteristic comment letter from a concerned citizen who values the symbolic and architectural integrity of the White House as the “People’s House.” He summarized that the commenter raises urgent questions about scale, appropriateness, and adherence to established design review traditions that protect national landmarks. The letter also notes that the East and West Wings were originally designed to remain subordinate to the executive residence, preserving both visual balance and symbolic clarity, and that the proposed scope and footprint of the new addition appear to challenge that principle, risking visual dominance and a permanent alteration of the historic ensemble of President’s Park. He said the commenter urges the Commission to require full disclosure of design renderings, specifications, and landscape modifications; to solicit public input through open comment; and to insist on an independent historic preservation review consistent with the spirit of the Shipstead-Luce Act and precedents governing President’s Park. The letter concludes that this project should serve as an example of restraint and reverence, and that the public deserves assurance that form follows both function and history.
Chairman Cook welcomed questions and comments from the Commission members.
Ms. Carter said that while everyone wants the new building to be beautiful, the current and future presidents must also be safe and secure. She agreed that important events should not be held in tents or hotel ballrooms, which also seem unsafe, but requested more information about the proposed security measures for the ballroom. She expressed concern about the extensive terracing, particularly the long, open terrace on the west side of the ballroom that is much longer than the White House itself. She said this seems like a large extent of open area that Secret Service would have to cover, and she emphasized her concern for the security of presidents and their guests.
Mr. Cook said he would provide his comments in the open meeting, and he would also be happy to meet Mr. Baranes at his office to sit with him as he works toward the next presentation. He asked for more information about the location of the portico on the east side, as it does not appear to be symmetrical with the passage from the White House on the upper level. Mr. Baranes clarified that visitors would enter at the ground level, and that the portico is therefore centered on the entrance foyer on that level. Mr. Cook asked if the primary way enter for guests and tourists would always be on the lower level; Mr. Baranes confirmed this would be the case. Mr. Cook asked if the terraces would be accessible from within the ballroom. Mr. Baranes said that all the doors on the south side of the hyphen and the west side of the ballroom are required egress points that would exit onto the terrace; the stairs leading down to grade are also part of the fire egress route. He said the change made by his firm was to provide cover for the terrace on the south side of the ballroom through the addition of a portico with columns, and to increase its height so it aligns with the midpoint of the flight of the stair on the left.
Mr. Cook asked if the large portico on the south, which features ten Corinthian columns, was requested by the president or if Mr. Baranes had suggested this design element; Mr. Baranes responded that the president expressed a desire to have the south terrace covered. Mr. Cook observed that even without the trees, the ballroom scale is not as overwhelming on the north side, and with trees its appearance would really diminish. He said that on the south side, it is a different story, noting that the landscape slopes down to the south. He said the proposed portico is immense and resembles that of the Treasury Building, and he asked if Mr. Baranes would be able to tone down the pediment, given that the president simply asked for the terrace to be covered. Mr. Baranes said several options for cover were studied, including elements of different scales and with different numbers of columns; however, it is the president’s desire to proceed with the presented design.
Secretary Luebke said the pediment on the south portico on the Treasury Building is partially visible in the elevation drawings, and he observed that the proposed ballroom portico appears to be larger. Mr. Baranes agreed but emphasized that the two porticos are on different planes; while the drawing makes the three elevations appear coplanar, the south facade of the White House, the proposed ballroom portico, and the Treasury portico are all separated by significant distances. He said the long elevation drawing would be extended to the west and east to include more of the surrounding context for a future presentation.
Mr. Cook said he knows the president would like to proceed expeditiously with the project and that they need to support him in his job. He asked how much additional documentation Mr. Baranes would be able to provide at the next review. Mr. Baranes said the project team will have three-dimensional renderings showing the project from various station points around the site, giving the Commission members the opportunity to assess the relationship of the ballroom to the White House on the west side, north side, and south side, as well as from the Treasury Building. His team is also developing an animation that would take viewers along the full frontage of the White House at Pennsylvania Avenue, as well as on E Street along the full frontage between the EEOB and the Treasury Building. He said this would allow the Commission members to understand how one would experience the whole complex moving along both streets. Mr. Cook requested the development of a physical model in addition to any virtual models; Mr. Kimball and Mr. Taylor agreed. Mr. Baranes responded that a physical model could be produced. Mr. Taylor said both the virtual and physical models should include scale depictions of the Treasury and the EEOB; he said including the whole complex would be good to see for scale purposes.
Mr. Cook cited the superior interior renovation work of Mr. Baranes at the Treasury Building, and asked him to further describe the scope of that project. Mr. Baranes said his firm was involved over a period of eight or ten years in the full renovation of the interior following a major fire; the scope included all new systems, restoration of all the historic spaces, and the construction of new office suites throughout the building. Mr. Cook said he had been in the building and said it was beautiful.
Mr. Cook asked about the potential project mentioned by Mr. Baranes to add a second story to the colonnade that connects the White House to the West Wing. Mr. Baranes said he had not begun any design work, and he said there is still a question as to what the building can support structurally; once this information is in hand, he would probably start to produce some initial sketches and studies. He said there is currently no firm schedule associated with any modifications at the West Wing. Mr. Cook asked if Mr. Baranes would be able to mimic what he had already drawn on the East; Mr. Baranes said it would make sense visually to do that, which would reestablish symmetry across both sides of the Residence, and he welcomed Mr. Cook’s comments on this potential
project.
Mr. Cook said that the scale of the presented drawings is so large that the details are hard to understand. He asked if any part of the colonnade implemented by President Thomas Jefferson had remained prior to the full demolition of the East Wing; Mr. Baranes confirmed that the East Wing was demolished, including the colonnade, and that all new construction is proposed. Mr. Cook asked if there are any remnants of the Jefferson colonnade behind the proposed staircase on the lower-level hyphen. Mr. Baranes said there are columns or pilasters, and it is not a particularly colonnaded space, and he said this would be illustrated more clearly in the next presentation.
Mr. Cook said it would be good if the Commission started meeting in its offices again so models could be seen in person. He said everyone knows this project is important to the president and to the nation, and that the need for a ballroom has been around for well over a century, at least since the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. He said that the building has been changed drastically throughout that time, and that it is good to see how the president has generated so much conversation about it, as the United States of America should not be entertaining people in tents. He said that if they can do this in a way that the White House remains and the people of the United States can enjoy it for centuries to come, he thinks that is their charge while taking care of what the president wants them to do.
Secretary Luebke said no action is requested at this time, noting it is likely that the project will return next month for review as a concept submission. He acknowledged the technological and logistical challenges related to meeting in person, and he said he would keep everyone updated on the progress toward that goal. Mr. Cook said the Commission has beautiful offices that should be used, and he described the videoconference format as a holdover from the pandemic, commenting that it was time to get the meetings back into the office.
Mr. Baranes thanked the Commission members and expressed appreciation for their initial thoughts. Mr. Cook said he was going to work on the project, too, and his office would document earlier examples of expansion ideas for the White House produced over the last 150 years. He said Mr. Baranes had probably seen many of these plans, but he would be happy to share them, noting most of them are Victorian whimsy. Mr. Baranes said that would be wonderful and he has already begun trying to put together a short history of how the building has changed historically. Mr. Cook cited President Chester A. Arthur’s Tiffany stained glass windows in the Entrance Hall and added that he believed President Roosevelt had hung a moose head over the mantle in the State Dining Room. He said the White House has been an eccentric place for centuries; Mr. Baranes agreed.
Chairman Cook thanked Mr. Baranes for his presentation and said the Commission looks forward to meeting him in person and seeing the models. Secretary Luebke said the staff would summarize the review in a letter. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
C. National Park Service / Virginia Passenger Rail Authority
CFA 22/JAN/26-2, Long Bridge Project – South Package. New railroad and pedestrian bridges between Virginia and the District of Columbia. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 18/JUN/25-1)
Secretary Luebke introduced the revised concept design for the southern section of the Long Bridge Project, submitted by the National Park Service (NPS) in conjunction with the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority (VPRA). He said the entire project extends from the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) in Virginia, over the Potomac River, passing over East Potomac Park and the Washington Channel, and finally terminating at Maine Avenue, NW, at the Portals development. He noted that the segment in for review is the South Package, which covers only the scope between the GWMP and the D.C. shoreline.
Secretary Luebke said the most significant component of the project is the construction of a new two-track rail bridge parallel to the existing Long Bridge, as well as a separate pedestrian-cyclist bridge. He said the design for the pedestrian-cyclist bridge across the parkway and the Potomac River has been developed since the last review, noting that a bowstring truss would now be used to span the GWMP, with a parallel chord truss over the river. He noted that the height of the trusses has been reduced significantly and would be painted a dark brown as advised by the Commission. He said the landscape designs for each end of the pedestrian bridge have been also further developed; at the GWMP, the design is visually and historically consistent with the corridor, with less formal drifts of trees, as directed by the Commission. He said the landing at Ohio Drive, NW, has also been refined to provide better connections between the bridge approaches and the adjacent sidewalk.
Secretary Luebke said the revised design for the new rail bridge eliminates the previously proposed decorative vertical extensions at several of the stone piers as requested by the Commission. For the Potomac River span of the rail bridge, the profile and cladding of the new piers continue to resemble those of the historic bridge, approximating the stone masonry of the bridge through the application of six-inch-thick granite cladding to the cast-in-place concrete piers. He noted that the concrete pile caps below the stone cladding must be located slightly above the water line to receive the piles, and that the project team has worked to minimize what could be overly prominent architectural elements. He asked Tammy Stidham, associate regional director for lands and planning at NPS, to introduce the presentation.
Ms. Stidham welcomed the new Commission members and said she looks forward to working with them on a variety of NPS projects. She explained that NPS has been working on the Long Bridge Project with VRPA for many years, both as a land manager and as a steward of the historic and cultural resources within this critical corridor. She said NPS’s role in this project is to ensure its compatibility with the surrounding parkland, and she noted the good partnership with VPRA as they work to expand not only the rail capacity, but also the regional connectivity and recreational access. She said the presentation reflects revisions developed in close coordination with stakeholders to address design concerns while preserving the character of NPS-managed lands. She asked Shirlene Cleveland, senior project director at VPRA, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Cleveland said the Long Bridge Project is the flagship of the Commonwealth’s “Transforming Rail in Virginia Initiative,” a $2.7 billion investment that will significantly expand rail capacity, improve mobility, and support economic growth across the Commonwealth and along the East Coast. She said the two new rail tracks, which would be carried across the Potomac on a new bridge constructed parallel to the existing two-track bridge, will alleviate one of the most critical rail bottlenecks in the country. She noted the project will enhance on-time rail performance, making travel and logistics more efficient. The project is expected to contribute $8 billion to the regional economy, supporting long-term growth and job creation. She said the Long Bridge Project has been divided into two packages: a South Package for the rail and pedestrian-cyclist bridge over the Potomac River, and a North Package for the added above-grade, two-track capacity within the District of Columbia. She said the North Package received revised concept approval from the Commission in July 2025, with the final approval delegated to the staff.
Ms. Cleveland said the proposal is intended to be compatible with the character of the existing and historic conditions. As such, the new bridge would appear similar to the existing Long Bridge, using weathering steel girders and through-plate girders. She explained that the retaining walls, piers, and abutments will also mimic existing structures, with dimensional granite cladding applied to the rail bridge piers in the Potomac River, and random ashlar stone cladding applied to the rail bridge elements at the GWMP. She said the landscape design would restore the planted and cultural landscapes throughout the corridor, providing views to the existing and new rail bridges and walls and maintaining critical viewsheds within the federal parkland. She introduced Ben Fitts of the Long Bridge Rail Partners design-build team and landscape architect Andrea Lake of Floura Teeter Landscape Architects, who will provide further information on the bridge and landscape designs.
Mr. Fitts said the existing Long Bridge dates to the early 1900s and includes an original swing-span truss over the river’s navigation channel; the swing span is now fixed in place. This bridge is composed of through-girders with an open deck section, allowing daylight and rainwater to pass directly through to the river below. Its piers are faced with stacked granite blocks, whose reddish appearance is a result of rust staining from the structural steel members above. He said the proposed design approach is to achieve a consistent aesthetic throughout the corridor that complements the adjacent parks and historic structures. He described incorporating two distinct patterns of stone cladding: a random ashlar pattern at the GWMP, and a running bond pattern on the elements in the river. He said the new rail bridge will feature weathering steel girders similar to those on the existing Long Bridge. He noted the girders are twelve feet tall and will weather gradually over time to the same color as the existing bridge. He explained that the geometry of the bridge’s substructure is intended to match that of the existing bridge, including an icebreaker shape on the upstream end of the river piers and a rounded shape on the downstream end of these piers; the pier locations will also match the existing bridge so the span alignment across the river will remain the same.
Mr. Fitts said the retaining wall separating the new railroad tracks from the start of the pedestrian-cyclist bridge on the Viginia side will extending from the bridge abutment and connect to an existing retaining wall behind the Long Bridge Aquatics and Fitness Center. This wall will receive the random ashlar stone cladding treatment, with a reinforced concrete cap. The small concrete knee wall in East Potomac Park adjacent to the landing point of the pedestrian-cyclist bridge at Ohio Drive would be two feet tall and remain unclad.
Mr. Fitts presented a rendering comparing the existing and proposed rail bridges, noting that the proposed river piers will feature a solid concrete core and six-inch thick granite cladding. The architectural treatment of the concrete pile caps at the base of each new river pier has been revised with rounded and sloped edges to reduce its visual impact. He said the pedestrian-cyclist bridge would span the parkway using a bowstring truss, while the rail bridge would include a pier in the median of the roadway. He indicated that the arched curvature of the bottom flange of the rail bridge girders would match that of the existing bridge over the parkway, and that the architectural projections on the ends of both piers would also match the existing structure.
Mr. Fitts said the structural members of the pedestrian-cyclist bridge would be painted a dark brown. The walking surface would be a concrete deck, with handrails and mesh screening mounted to the interior side of both trusses. The pile caps in the water would have a similar design treatment as those of the rail bridge. The bridge’s landing at Ohio Drive in East Potomac Park would be flared to accommodate traffic from both directions. He said the lighting plan would use a variety of sources to meet the required light levels while also preserving the corridor’s parkland quality. Downlights in the handrails of the pedestrian-cyclist bridge would be angled toward the center of the pathway to achieve an optimal balance of light distribution while minimizing broader light pollution.
Ms. Lake said the landscape design approach is intended to create a visually and historically consistent plant palette aligned with the surrounding context, maintaining key viewsheds, mitigating the trees lost during construction by replanting as extensively as possible, and incorporating native and pollinator-supportive species where feasible. The proposed planting palette incorporates varying colors and textures, as well as several species of canopy and understory trees, evergreen shrubs, and herbaceous plants. She said these selections would reinforce both visual interest and ecological function.
Ms. Lake described four views of the proposed landscape within the project context. She said the first view is within Long Bridge Park, where the pedestrian-cyclist bridge touches down near the Long Bridge Aquatics and Fitness Center. She noted that some structural elements of the new rail bridge are visible in both views, but that from the pedestrian perspective, the plantings provide some screening of the elements while not completely obstructing them from view. She said the second view is at the intersection of the pedestrian-cyclist bridge ramp and staircase with the Mount Vernon Trail. She said trees would be intentionally set back from the trail in this location to maintain clear sight lines for safety. She noted that as the site sits within a network of historic and cultural landscapes, the planting layout reflects and honors those precedents. She said the third view is along the Mount Vernon Trail looking northeast from Gravelly Point towards the existing Long Bridge. She said this area would have the highest concentration of tree removals, but it also offers the greatest opportunity for large scale replacement planting. She noted that proposed trees in the park area have been selected to provide texture, habitat, and visual interest while preserving the open, passive character of the park. She said the fourth view is at the landing of the pedestrian-cyclist bridge near Ohio Drive. This area provides an opportunity for pollinator-friendly plantings that do not interfere with sight lines or user safety.
She noted that coordination with the project’s previously approved North Package is ongoing, helping to ensure the entire corridor has a cohesive theme. She said that together, these landscape design strategies help integrate transportation, ecology, and historic character while enhancing user safety and experience throughout the project corridor.
Chairman Cook invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. McCrery reminded the presenters that this is the first time most of the Commission members are reviewing the project, and he asked Ms. Cleveland to indicate the existing and proposed structures. Ms. Cleveland said there would be two new bridges: a new two-track rail bridge adjacent to the existing Long Bridge, and a new pedestrian-cyclist bridge; she confirmed that the existing historic two-track bridge would be retained and used primarily for freight rail, resulting in a total of four tracks available for use through this important rail corridor. She said that the new pedestrian-cyclist bridge would create a vehicle-free connection between the federal parkland on each side of the river.
Ms. Carter asked for more information about the proposed connections to L’Enfant Plaza and Union Station. Ms. Cleveland said there is another project extending from the L’Enfant Plaza area to Union Station that would also add two tracks, allowing a connection to the existing two tracks that go north to Union Station and the two tracks that go east for the CSX freight rail corridor. Ms. Carter asked for more information about the pedestrian-cyclist bridge on the Virgina side of the river. Ms. Cleveland said the bridge would begin at the Long Bridge Aquatics and Fitness Center and span over the parkway, with a ramp and stair structure allowing access to the Mount Vernon Trail; parking would be available at the recreation center.
Mr. McCrery said he has a several questions regarding the new rail bridge. He asked for the height of the vertical steel elements compared to the existing walls, noting that in some renderings it appears that views up and down the river would be obscured by the height of the new side walls. Mr. Fitts responded that the girders of the proposed bridge would be twelve feet tall and the girders of the existing bridge are just over eleven feet tall. Mr. McCrery asked if views from the 14th Street Bridge would be blocked to the existing Metrorail bridge, the existing Long Bridge, the new rail bridge, and the new pedestrian-cyclist bridge. He also asked where the historic swing span of the bridge is in this view; Mr. Fitts said it is not clearly depicted in this particular rendering, but is roughly mid-span. Mr. McCrery asked if the proposed side walls are structural and would contribute to the overall rigidity, and he asked if the vertical rise of the new walls would be welded; Mr. Fitts confirmed a combination of welds and bolted connections would be used. Mr. McCrery asked if the height is related to the dimension of the perpendicular girder trusses; Mr. Fitts clarified that there would be exterior girders and an interior floor beam, and that perpendicular to those exterior girders would be a series of floor beams and interior diaphragms covered with steel deck plates, with ballast stone on top. Mr. McCrery asked if the girders span from pier to pier; Mr. Fitts confirmed this. Mr. McCrery asked if this vertical dimension is required to span this distance; Mr. Fitts confirmed this.
Mr. McCrery asked if it would be possible to have an open girder system instead of a plate girder system where the new bridge would be adjacent to the swing span, commenting that the twelve-foot wall would block the view of the swing-span truss, which he described as beautiful. Mr. Fitts said the truss is considerably taller than the existing bridge and therefore believes existing views to the truss would be retained. Mr. McCrery asked if an open truss parallel and complimentary to the historic swing span had been considered for the new bridge; Mr. Fitts said it is something that could be discussed, and deferred to VPRA leadership, noting he does not believe this had previously been considered. Mr. McCrery said the Potomac River is a nationally significant scenic river, not merely a water body that must be crossed; therefore, every structure that spans the river should be remarkable.
Mr. McCrery said there is a great number of fairly substantial watercraft that enjoy this part of the river, especially upriver at the Watergate and farther north into Georgetown, and he asked about potential impacts to the navigability of the river, noting the underside of the proposed pedestrian-cyclist bridge seems very low in comparison with the undersides of the Metrorail bridge, 14th Street bridge complex, and both the existing and proposed rail bridges. He also asked what the pedestrian-cyclist bridge’s clearance would be at mean tide within the navigable channel; Mr. Fitts responded that the underside of the bridge at the navigable channel is around twenty feet, which is a minimum requirement. He explained it slopes down largely due to accessibility requirements; at the seawall along Ohio Drive, it would be roughly seven feet above mean high water, which has been coordinated with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to evaluate in consideration of the proposed design. Ms. Cleveland added that DDOT and the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department have noted concerns about the traversability of certain spans because of the low clearance of the pedestrian-cyclist bridge in certain areas, and therefore a notification system for boaters is being developed. Mr. Fitts confirmed that the new bridges would be either equal to or higher than the existing bridges, thereby maintaining the existing navigability of the river. Mr. McCrery emphasized that maintaining this navigability would be important to the continued success of the river as a place for recreation, particularly during Fourth of July celebrations.
Mr. McCrery said the river piers supporting the pedestrian-cyclist bridge appear to be off-the-shelf precast concrete structures, and asked if they could be refined to have a more appropriate character, such as by cladding them with stone like the other river piers. Mr. Fitts said these elements have been refined throughout the design review process, particularly the pile caps, which have been chamfered to give them a more elegant, octagonal shape. He said stone cladding may be ineffective on round concrete columns, but that this could be further studied. Mr. McCrery suggested the piers could be rectangular, as the goal is not to prescribe a shape but to use natural materials; he emphasized that all components of the project should be beautiful. Mr. Cook suggested that the piers could have a trefoil or quatrefoil shape in plan. Mr. McCrery agreed that this should be considered. Mr. Fitts said the pedestrian-cyclist bridge is a modern structure that is not intended to resemble the historic bridge, as the new rail bridge would. Mr. McCrery said they are both modern structures, and that there is nothing modern about walking or cycling. He said the key consideration should be the historic character of the river corridor, and he emphasized that the design standard should be very high. He observed that a pedestrian’s view of the historic swing span truss would be obscured by the sidewalls of the new bridge, and suggested consideration of adding a truss structure at the mid-span of the new bridge, creating a moment that people could enjoy while crossing the river.
Mr. Cook said he and Mr. McCrery could produce some sketches and send them to Mr. Fitts; Mr. McCrery confirmed that he would like to do so, and he also expressed strong support for the landscape design, characterizing it as very nice. Mr. Cook agreed and noted that the octagonal pedestals for the pedestrian-cyclist bridge are attractive, and it is just a matter of forming the columns in a similar manner; he said they would provide some sketches for the design team.
Secretary Luebke said the proposal was submitted as a revised concept design, and noted the Commission members raised some fairly significant design questions about the shape of the pedestrian-cyclist bridge’s river piers, as well as about the design of the new bridges at their mid-spans in relation to the historic swing span truss. Mr. McCrery said this is a new Commission and recommended that no action be taken, with the applicant considering the comments in anticipation of another review. Ms. Cleveland said the project team looks forward to returning and addressing the comments. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 22/JAN/26-3, Engine Company 7, 1100 Half Street, SW. Construction of a new building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design submission for a new building and associated landscape for Engine Company 7, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS). He said the proposed site would be subdivided following the demolition of the existing firehouse and fleet maintenance facility; a new firehouse would be constructed on the north parcel, with high-density, mixed-use development planned for the south parcel, in accordance with the D.C. Office of Planning’s Southwest Neighborhood Small Area Plan. The historic L Street right-of-way would be reestablished along the north edge of the firehouse.
Secretary Luebke said the proposed firehouse would consist of a high-ceilinged volume housing the apparatus bays, wrapped on several sides by volumes containing living quarters and other support spaces, with two levels of underground parking below. He noted that the massing is stepped along Half Street to allow for safe sight lines for vehicles exiting the station. The proposed material palette includes red brick, with the central volume clad in a darker iron-spot brick, along with a suspended metal canopy, red bay doors, and transom windows. A new curb cut and apron on Half Street the width of the apparatus bay would be provided, as well as alley access from M Street for loading. There would be a small public plaza at the northeast corner of the site. He asked architect Adam McGraw, principal at StudioMB, to present the design.
Mr. McGraw said that given the extensive new construction in Southwest D.C. in the past fifteen years, a new firehouse with a ladder truck has been needed for some time. Neighboring properties include the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) inspection station to the north, the DMV service station with a large surface parking area to the west, a Metropolitan Police Department building farther west, and Lansburgh Park. He said nearby M and South Capitol Streets are busy thoroughfares, and he noted that the reestablished L Street is proposed to extend to Delaware Avenue as part of the continued restoration of the L’Enfant Plan.
Mr. McGraw said there is high-density mixed-use development that radiates from nearby Nationals Park and Navy Yard, as well as the Waterfront Metrorail station area and the Wharf beyond. The planning for this area calls for high-density commercial and residential mixed-use development along M Street, stepping down from high-density to medium density to the north.
Following discussions with the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Planning and Economic Development, the firehouse project would leave the southern portion of the site open for future mixed-use development at the prominent corner of M and Half Streets. Maintaining the firehouse’s entrance on Half Street would allow for the deployment of emergency vehicles both to the north and south, whereas M Street is a busier street with a median, restricting deployment options.
Mr. McGraw said the exterior programmatic elements include a fifty-foot-deep apron in front of the firehouse to allow for daily fire truck inspections without having to pull into traffic. A public-facing plaza at the northeast corner would serve an important role as a safe place for the community; a rear ground-level terrace and outdoor roof terrace would provide employees a place to relax and recreate out of public view. Other program areas include the four-bay apparatus space, a sixteen-bunk room, seven officers’ rooms, office space, day-to-day living spaces for firefighters, and mechanical spaces.
Mr. McGraw said sight lines and safety are some of the most important factors in determining the massing of the project and how it relates to the site. The building would therefore be set back from the north to create a clear line of sight to southbound traffic. In addition, since any future development would most likely extend to the property line, the massing allows for a diagonal line of sight to northbound traffic on Half Street. Because a building level above the apparatus bays is not necessary, a roof terrace area between the taller three-story bars was created. Noting that it is always important for firehouses to have a sense of identity, he said the facades would present opportunities for signage and identity within the community, with the engine company number and similar elements facing the public.
Mr. McGraw presented a precedent study of different D.C. firehouses, ranging from historic examples like Engine Company 16 to contemporary examples like Engine Companies 1 and 13, which are in mixed-use developments. He said that these examples are almost all brick masonry buildings, many featuring vertical hose towers that create the identity of a firehouse within a community. He observed that the openings of the firehouse bays were articulated in different ways, such as the low arch and quoining on the openings in Engine Company 16, rounder arches in the middle examples, and the Art Deco frame around the existing opening on the current Engine Company 7 facility. He noted that Engine Companies 22 and 14 were cited by FEMS as examples of more contemporary firehouses to consider. He said that interviews with end users and firefighters at the current Engine Company 7 revealed an appreciation for tradition as an important part of the identity of firefighters, with one noting a preference for new facility to “look like a firehouse.”
Mr. McGraw said the three-story stair tower abutting the development site to the south would provide the vertical element seen in many firehouses. The south side of this wall could provide a space for public art until the adjacent site is developed. The apparatus bays would be articulated with arches and transom windows, along with a canopy stretching across the front. He noted the primary entry would sit back behind the public plaza on the northern end, within another taller element set back from the public right-of-way. He said the engine bays would have traditional bifold doors painted red, which is the FEMS standard. He said the bunk rooms would not have windows in order to accommodate the different sleep schedules of the firefighters; therefore, the north and east facades would have recessed panels to create visual interest. He said the two levels of underground parking would provide a total of ninety parking spaces. He indicated the significant stormwater management elements in the landscape, which he said would be deep planters that could accommodate trees. Solar panels are also proposed for the site and on the roof.
Chairman Cook noted that as an honorary fireman of Station 11 in Atlanta, Georgia, near his museum, he has investigated thoroughly how to evacuate quickly if the building is on fire. He said the station occasionally invites him down for a sleepover and a ride-along. He said he understands everything that has been done in the project, noting that it is done expertly and draws on the firefighters’ tradition, observing that firefighters are traditional people and the design has addressed that with the proposed arches. He asked if there is a ladder truck in addition to the engines; Mr. McGraw confirmed that there would be a ladder truck.
Mr. Cook expressed support for the project and the reestablishment of the historic L Street, commenting that the apparatus bay arches would have an unusual but appealing shape. He said the recessed niches on the blank facades are good gestures, and he recommended that the recesses on the north facade be less vertical, possibly by joining them and emulating the apparatus bay arches, which would pull the building together. He suggested a similar treatment for the tall window within the stair tower.
Mr. Cook asked about the area’s high water table, noting there are underground levels of parking. He said he dealt with this issue at the linear park on Tiber Creek just a few blocks from this location, noting that the site was also considered for a memorial. Mr. McCrery said the Tiber Creek park is about six blocks east from this project, and he noted that the land is lower in that area. Mr. Cook reiterated his concerns about the level of the water table and asked for additional information; Mr. McGraw responded that the site is outside of the one-hundred-year floodplain and that floodproofing elements are not required. He clarified that some of what appears as an architectural water table on the north elevation is the depth of the stormwater planter in front of the building; he noted the horizontal line labeled “bioretention wall” is the planter sitting adjacent to the building. He said this datum line would be carried across as a water table on the front facade, and he noted that this would need to be a durable material given the building use.
Mr. Cook said he is also speaking about pumps, noting that he has dealt with some structures around the Ellipse, where it is like walking on a sponge, as well as along the Tiber Creek area, and he asked for the specific level of the water table at the site. Mr. McGraw said he does not have this information immediately available but that he would be happy to provide it in the future. Mr. McCrery said this is something that the entire design team should be aware of, especially the engineering consultant. Mr. Cook said they should ensure that the lower level will not flood during rainstorms, which can happen frequently in Washington.
Ms. Carter expressed appreciation for the detailed presentation, and she asked if this would be the only firehouse in Southwest D.C. with ladder trucks; Mr. McGraw clarified there are no ladder trucks within this particular area of Southwest. Ms. Carter described the two levels of underground parking as brilliant, noting she drives through the area almost every day and goes to the nearby post office frequently. She said parking is difficult because people park on the street, and that access to the post office is blocked because of the parking and traffic for the DMV facility.
Mr. McCrery joined Mr. Cook in complimenting the design of the apparatus bay section of the building, as it strongly indicates the building’s identity as a firehouse, and he said the overall the composition is also very good. He suggested making the transom windows above the bay doors red, the same as the doors themselves; this would also include corner window at the north. He said this would bring additional consistency to the design.
Mr. McCrery said that in emulation of President Trump, some substantial flagpoles should be added, one for the United States flag and one for the District of Columbia flag. He said they do not have to be eighty feet tall, but that they should have substantial flags, as this would be an important civic building. He said they could be building-mounted or out near the curb in a prominent location. Mr. McGraw said the project team had planned to put a flagpole in the public plaza area near the entrance.
Mr. McCrery complimented the District of Columbia Government for its forward-thinking leadership in its plan to reestablish L Street and restore the L’Enfant Plan. He said D.C. needs to be the leader in restoring closed streets and restoring the integrity of the L’Enfant Plan, which should be done whenever possible. He also complimented the District for wisely, prudently, and entrepreneurially making government-owned land available for private development.
Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission had expressed support for the concept design and provided comments about secondary issues, such as the articulation and detailing of certain design elements.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to approve the concept design with the comments and recommendations provided; upon a second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission adopted this action.
2. CFA 22/JAN/26-4, Rumsey Aquatic Center, 635 North Carolina Avenue, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for the construction of a replacement building and landscape for the Rumsey Aquatic Center, located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood adjacent to Eastern Market, which is a national historic landmark. He said the existing building was opened in 1972 as the first year-round, racially integrated swimming pool in the city; it consists of a one-story head house with a plaza and a one-story volume housing the pool, set within a high-walled yard extending down to C Street, SE. This facility has been deemed inadequate and will be demolished. He said the proposal is to construct a new two-story replacement building containing two pools, expanded locker rooms, fitness facilities, and community amenities. He said the building is designed to take fuller advantage of the site than the existing one by eliminating the walled yard and adding a second level, adding that the proposed design reduces the footprint while increasing program space. The concept design consists of a series of interlocking one- and two-story volumes stepping down and back at the corners, with the intention of reducing the apparent mass in response to the scale of the surrounding context of rowhouses and the historic Eastern Market. The new north plaza would allow additional space for market vendors, events, and other public uses, and would also feature shade trees and bioretention areas. He asked architect Rick Harlan Schneider, principal at ISTUDIO Architects, to present the design.
Mr. Schneider said the project is challenging, as the intention is to create a facility that is a community anchor while being deferential to the historic Eastern Market. He said the existing facility consists of a minimalist, dark brick headhouse, with a glass centerpiece and large pieces of equipment on the roof, with a Brutalist concrete structure behind it. The building is surrounded by a tall, solid brick wall, creating a narrow sidewalk connection between C Street and North Carolina Avenue. The existing building is a similar height to the eave line of Eastern Market facility, and its massing steps back and away from the historic market. There is a private alley between the two buildings that is used primarily for loading and unloading for market vendors; he noted both facilities share the same record lot, and the alley is intended to service both.
Mr. Schneider presented images of the context, including Eastern Market’s light-filled interior, the typical two-story Capitol Hill brick rowhouses to the west, and the larger scale commercial and multifamily buildings to the southwest. He indicated a large heritage tree in the front yard of the aquatic center, noting there can be no new construction within the tree’s structural root zone and minimal new construction in its critical root zone; therefore, the new building’s northwest corner must be kept to one story. He said the staff of the D.C. Historic Preservation Office indicated an interest in maintaining the historic viewshed of Eastern Market, and they therefore requested that the northeast corner of the new building also be one story. He said the existing walled concrete yard feels like a “prison yard,” and the tall wall also creates an unwelcoming character for the existing facility. The existing parking for both Eastern Market and the facility itself will be maintained. He noted that the new facility is also required to meet energy efficiency standards.
Mr. Schneider said the proposed building location would allow for the widening of the private alley, creating a more pleasant pedestrian experience along the Eastern Market building between C Street and North Carolina Avenue. Structured stormwater management would be integrated into the new plazas on both the north and south, with extensive green roofs on the building. To provide an inviting atmosphere, the planters would contain trees for shade, with a series of benches engaged with the planters and new light fixtures. He said that by using more of the existing building yard, the new building would provide the same amount of square footage on the first floor while providing more plaza area on the north. This also allows the massing to step back in several areas in order to maintain views toward Eastern Market and to provide outdoor terrace spaces. He said the massing concept breaks down the building into nine squares, with each block on the upper level responding to site conditions; for example, one square would be set back to respect the critical root zone. He said that being loose and playful with the blocks results in a practical and pragmatic breaking down of the massing and allows the building to respond to the context.
Mr. Schneider said the main entrance would open into a large lobby space with frameless glass walls on the community rooms. Program areas on the first floor would include the two pools, egress stairs, pool equipment, mechanical and electrical systems, and locker rooms. A grand stair and elevator would provide access to the second floor, which would consist of a community space, a senior center with an outdoor terrace, and a fitness room and a community room, both with outdoor terraces as well. There would be overlooks to the lap pool below, creating a sense of an expansive interior space. The extensive mechanical systems would be on the second floor, enclosed by walls and open to the sky. He said each massing block is treated differently but would use a similar material palette, which includes the red brick commonly seen in Capitol Hill for both solid coursed walls, as well as for lattice walls and other decorative patterns. The glazing types include storefront and ganged windows; bronze-colored metal would also be used.
Mr. Schneider presented the proposed elevation drawings, noting the different massing volumes. He described the rear elevation along C Street as much more enlivened than the existing, with windows, storefront glazing, planters, and stormwater management with trees and benches replacing the solid brick wall. He noted that the passage between C Street and North Carolina Avenue is much improved, with raised brick planters and bollards to prevent trucks from parking on the curb, creating a dedicated pedestrian space with lively materials, windows, and lattice brick. He presented the front elevation, explaining that the design steps back at the first and second stories to be lower than the eave line of Eastern Market. He noted that the sizes of the proposed ganged windows derive from the proportions of a typical window in Eastern Market. He presented views of the proposed building’s interior, noting the check-in desk and a large frameless glass wall that would have images depicting the history of the site and place, helping to honor the legacy of the facility’s namesake, William Rumsey, and the people instrumental in the creation of the pool.
Chairman Cook commended the presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. McCrery agreed that the presentation was very good and thanked the project team for the extensive background provided. He said he is a longtime resident of the neighborhood and that he and his family have used the existing facility for decades; he commented that it is clear the current building is not great. He expressed support for the open spaces along C Street and North Carolina Avenue, and he commended the site analysis and proposed planning for the facility. He also expressed strong support incorporating the mechanical systems into the volume of the second floor, rather than just placing the mechanical units directly on the roof.
Mr. McCrery agreed that the current facility is Brutalist in character, but he said that the proposal unfortunately substitutes the existing Brutalism with another type of Brutalism. While the proposed design might be better than the existing, it is still Brutalism, which is not appropriate either aesthetically or historically for the core of the Capitol Hill neighborhood. He said that while the area around the Eastern Market Metro station was planned to be the neighborhood core, this is not the case, and Eastern Market itself has remained the primary focus. As the proposed project is in this core area, its architecture is not appropriate for the setting.
Mr. McCrery emphasized that his comments extend to the massing, as the exterior design is inseparable from the massing. He recommended that the project team study the Eastern Market building and its northern addition, which is a very different building that nevertheless is complementary to the original. He suggested that the nine-square concept be reconsidered, perhaps by further developing the attitude and architecture of the shed form that characterizes Eastern Market into a more appropriate and complimentary design. He said the new buildings in the area designed by architect Amy Weinstein are much more successful than what is being shown, and he cited her use of encaustic tilework on the exteriors. He concluded that the design team is clearly talented, and he requested an alternative design that is not an essay in contemporary Brutalism.
Mr. Cook said he would like to echo Mr. McCrery’s comments, finding that the massing and planning are superb, particularly how the building would step back from Eastern Market, as well as the green roofs. He said that if the project team members applied Mr. McCrery’s comments, they would make an exciting space on Capitol Hill, as the market could potentially be opened up to the new plaza to create a secondary Eastern Market. He said the gesture would be easy to do with the spatial planning they have already done, noting they could even emulate the rowhouse facades on the proposed massing. He agreed that they should not copy Eastern Market, as there are many precedents immediately around the site that would harmonize better, and he said he would like to see that at the next review.
Secretary Luebke clarified that no action is required today, and that the staff will summarize these comments in a letter. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
E. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
CFA 22/JAN/26-5, Dupont Circle Metrorail Station, 1525 20th Street, NW. New artwork at north entrance. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for an artwork to be installed at the north entrance of the Dupont Circle Metro Station in northwest Washington, D.C., as part of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA) Art in Transit program. He said the station was opened in 1977 as part of the first expansion of the original core of the Metrorail system, which ran between Union Station and Farragut North Station. In 2007, to honor the efforts of the city’s caregivers during the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, several lines of Walt Whitman’s poem, “The Wound-Dresser,” were inscribed on the inner wall of the station’s north entrance cylinder; this poem was included in Whitman’s momentous work, Leaves of Grass. Plantings were also installed in the areas flanking escalators at this entrance to soften the monolithic masonry structure, but these were later removed. He said the proposal considers themes related to Whitman’s celebration of growth and change and his affinity for the natural world, as well as the concepts of interconnectedness and movement over time. He said the artwork incorporates a spiraling biophilic pattern of metal panels supporting an array of 528 metal stems and colored panels that represent grass. He asked Anne Delaney, acting project manager for the Art in Transit program at WMATA, to present the design.
Ms. Delaney said the Art in Transit program, which was established nearly forty years ago, has incorporated public artwork into stations and other facilities as a way to enhance the experience of transit riders and the public, as well as to connect with the communities the agency serves. For this project at the Dupont Circle Station, a request for qualifications (RFQ) was issued in October 2024; this RFQ established the location of the artwork as the semicircular spaces on each side of the escalator bank. Submitted portfolios and concepts were reviewed by a panel assembled and led by the Art in Transit program in accordance with the program’s guidelines. The panel was composed of stakeholders including representatives from the community and the area’s cultural scene, such as the Dupont Circle Business Improvement District, the Phillips Collection, International Arts and Artists at Hillyer, the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities, Metro’s director of architecture, and Metro’s architectural historian.
Two hundred portfolios from national and international artists were received, and after an initial round of reviews by the panel, five semifinalists were selected to submit site-specific concepts. The artists were then interviewed by the panel, which ultimately selected a concept by Michael Szivos of SOFTlab. She noted that the concept was presented in August 2025 to the D.C. Historic Preservation Office, which determined that the proposal would not result in adverse effects to the station architecture. She asked Mr. Szivos to present the proposed artwork.
Mr. Szivos said the conceptual framework for the proposal is derived from the Whitman inscription. He said Whitman’s celebration of life and nature, along with the idea of the interconnectedness of everything, resonated with the design team, which thought these concepts would fit very well with the transit system, as it plays a role in connecting communities and people. He noted that the title on the original printing of Leaves of Grass was rendered in a font replicating growing plants, which really foregrounded Whitman’s affinity for a world that was always in a state of flux and change. He explained that Whitman also asserts in the work that one leaf of grass could be just as important or worthy of attention as the grandeur or complexity of the stars. Therefore, the proposal considers how individual elements can represent a larger whole and produce something similar to an ensemble, like an orchestra or a dance, where each individual, each train, each station, each node within a network, is important and helps craft an interconnected whole.
Mr. Szivos said the context’s larger formal language includes the namesake circle, the granite-clad entrance cylinder and circular glass canopy, and ultimately the sky and constellations that one would see through that cylinder. He said the team was interested in how the experience of wind blowing through a field of grass could be captured using static materials. This led to study of Étienne-Jules Marey’s nineteenth-century chronophotographs, in which a person or animal in motion was photographed and printed onto a single photographic image.
Mr. Szivos said one of the major elements of the brief for the artwork was that it had to be biophilic in nature. He explained that in studying patterns in nature, the team selected the concept of phyllotaxis, one type of which is a spiraling pattern seen in the way that the heads of sunflowers grow, as well as certain succulent plants. He described superimposing that pattern onto the plan of the cylinder to create the spiraling layout of the proposed stainless-steel panels that would support the stems. The panels would be installed above the existing planters, which must be retained.
Mr. Szivos said the stems would be arranged like an orchestra on risers, so the stems closer to the escalators would be shorter than those at the perimeter, creating a bowl effect that allows for different levels of visibility. The stems toward the top of the escalators would be lower to ensure the existing Whitman inscription remains legible. The stems would be formed from stainless-steel tubes bent at varying angles, thereby generating a sense of the movement of wind through a field and the sense of motion over time. He said the translucent acrylic panels that would be installed at the end each stem are meant to be evocative of blades of grass. Each panel would be colored based on a palette of greens, blues, and yellows; by lighting the panels, one could create a lenticular effect for people riding the escalators. Even without lighting, the arrangement of the stems would create a dynamic effect, as people would perceive the pattern interference and mixing of colors between the panels as they overlap. Each tube would have an LED fixture, so during the day and especially at night, it would shine through the acrylic panel and illuminate the translucent film embedded in the acrylic. During the day, it is expected that sunlight reflecting off the panels would project a shifting landscape of color onto the granite cylinder and stainless-steel panels. He said the LEDs are not meant to produce ambient or overly dramatic lighting, but rather to simply animate the panels. He said subtle shifting of the lights would animate the artwork, but the speed and effect of the lighting changes are still being studied, with the goal of creating the effect of wind blowing through grass.
Mr. Szivos said the use of a special privacy film within the panels is also being studied. To activate the opacity effect of the otherwise translucent film, low-voltage current would be passed through the film; switching between states of opaqueness and transparency would create an additional sense of motion and dynamism. He emphasized that the lighting is intended to add to the atmospheric quality of the work, with the goal of producing something that feels magical and perhaps alive; the artwork should feel as though it is a living part of the station, embodying the cadence of the movement within.
Chairman Cook said the presentation was superb, and he invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Kimball asked if there are any concerns about the long-term maintenance of the artwork within the setting of the busy Metro station. Mr. Szivos acknowledged this concern, commenting that Metro stations are beautifully maintained when compared to those of the subway in New York City, where he is based. He said the design team would continue to work with WMATA regarding maintenance of the artwork as the design is developed. He said using non-corrosive materials like stainless steel was one consideration; in addition, many parts of the artwork would be interchangeable, allowing for the easy provision of replacement parts. In addition, the artwork is intended to be legible even if the lighting becomes inoperable or is abandoned.
Ms. Carter said she is huge fan of public art and loves to see proposals such as this, and she characterized concept as brilliant. She said her initial concerns about the potentially tight spacing of the stems were alleviated by the end of the presentation, but she said it is still unclear how the colors would be distributed across the panels. She also expressed concern about the overuse of silver-colored materials, as the existing escalators are silver. Mr. Szivos said he understands why the stems seemed too closely spaced in the earlier part of the presentation, as in the plan view they seem denser than how they would actually be perceived. He said the proposed arrangement and number of stems was also determined by budget and maintenance considerations, as there would need to be adequate spacing between the stems to allow for staff access. He noted the proposal is still in preliminary stages, so the spacing and color palette are still being studied.
Mr. McCrery said the proposal is quite nice, and he asked what had happened to the earlier plantings. Ms. Delaney said they had failed and would be hard to reestablish due to the new canopy; she said incorporating art into the site is a means of addressing the empty spaces. Mr. McCrery asked if the stainless-steel panels would adequately cover and seal the area so that no weeds would grow from between the panels. Mr. Szivos said all organic material would be removed, and he reiterated that the existing stone planters are required to remain in place. Mr. McCrery asked whether the panels would actually touch and how they were connected; Mr. Szivos said there would be small joints, perhaps one sixteenth of an inch, to allow for expansion and contraction, as well as for maintenance access, and he confirmed that people would not be able to see down into the structure through the small gaps. Mr. McCrery asked if the stems were rigid or flexible; Mr. Szivos said the 528 stems would be engineered to be rigid. He confirmed that the escalators are stainless steel and the entrance cylinder is clad with granite panels.
Mr.McCrery asked if bronze had been considered for the base panels; Mr. Szivos said the stainless steel was selected for its neutral appearance and he suggested that the panels could possibly be bronze-anodized aluminum. Mr. McCrery recommended the stainless steel have a non-reflective matte or brushed finish. He expressed support for the lighting component of the project and suggested exploration of seasonal color palettes.
Secretary Luebke summarized the Commission’s support for the project, and asked if the members would like to review the project at its next stage or if they wished to delegate further review to the staff.
Mr. McCrery said the Commission members had expressed much interest in the project, and he offered a motion to approve the concept submission with the comments provided, with the request that the Commission members continue to review project as a final design; upon second by Ms. Carter, the Commission adopted this action.
F. D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities
CFA 22/JAN/26-6, Mamie Johnson Plaza, intersection of Florida Avenue, New York Avenue, and First Street, NE. New artwork – Curve. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the final design submission for a sculpture honoring Mamie “Peanut” Johnson, proposed to be located within a new plaza at the intersection of 1st Street, Florida Avenue, and New York Avenue, NE. He said this plaza and the adjacent park areas were created following the purchase and demolition of the Wendy’s restaurant that was located at this important crossroads and gateway into the historic L’Enfant City. Ms. Johnson was the first female pitcher in the Negro Leagues, which she joined in her teens, and she played in that professional baseball league for three years. She earned the nickname Peanut from one of her opponents due to her diminutive size, but she was also known for her powerful curveball, amassing a record of thirty-three wins and eight losses. Upon leaving baseball, she received her nursing degree from the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College in Greensboro, NC, and eventually returned to Washington, where she worked as a nurse at Sibley Hospital for three decades.
Secretary Luebke said the proposed artwork—Curve, by local artist Rania Hassan—consists of a sculptural loop inspired both by the stitching on baseballs and the caduceus, the symbol of medicine, given Johnson’s work in both fields. The sculpture would be anchored to a four-foot-high pedestal and would stand a total of twelve feet high; it would be made of half-inch-thick carbon steel and finished with bright red paint. He asked Karyn Miller, public art manager at the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities (DCCAH), to begin the presentation.
Ms. Miller said the proposal was developed in partnership with the North of Massachusetts Avenue Business Improvement District (NoMa BID), which was awarded a DCCAH Public Art Building Communities grant. She said this program supports individual artists and organizations in their efforts to create new temporary and permanent public artworks. She asked Brian Smith, vice president of planning and economic development at the NoMa BID, to present the proposal.
Mr. Smith said the first goal of the proposed artwork is to create a sense of arrival into the historic core of Washington, D.C., as well as into the growing neighborhoods of NoMa, Eckington, and Union Market. He said the project’s timing also coincides with the country’s 250th anniversary, and the project team is excited to be able to tell a uniquely American story through this sculpture. He said the selection of a local D.C. artist also serves to celebrate the excellence of the region’s artist community and would represent a new addition to the extraordinary collection of public art in the city. He said the sculpture would also serve as a wayfinding marker.
Mr. Smith emphasized that this area is bisected by several major roadways, and that the intersection was colloquially known as “Dave Thomas Circle,” in humorous reference to the founder of the Wendy’s restaurant chain that used to sit at its center. It was one of the busiest and most dangerous intersections in the city; it has since been completely reconfigured and now features more than an acre of public space divided into three areas. In addition to the traffic and pedestrian safety improvements, the redesign added new bike lanes, a new playground, generous seating, and plantings throughout. He said the proposed site was named after Ms. Johnson following a lengthy community consultation process. Art was always intended to be a part of the intersection, and the proposed artwork is designed for this specific location within Mamie “Peanut” Johnson Plaza. He said the sculpture would sit at the center of a twenty-foot-wide circular planting area within the plaza. Low plantings around the base of a new four-foot-tall pedestal would serve as a barrier between the artwork and the public to prevent climbing or other unwanted activities.
Mr. Smith said Curve was designed by Rania Hassan, a D.C. resident who has worked in a variety of media. Her work can be seen at the National Institutes of Health and the offices of Amazon Web Services; her work Marker, which sat at the intersection of Connecticut Avenue, K Street, and 17th Street, was well-known in the area, and he anticipates that Curve will be received similarly. He said the proposed artwork is intended to weave the two aspects of Mamie’s career—her legacy as the first black woman to pitch in professional baseball as well as her career as a nurse. The piece would be an homage to her famous and dangerous curveball. He said the sculpture would have a dynamic appearance as once walks around the artwork, giving the idea of a curveball in motion. He described the other inspirations for the piece, noting that the baseball stitching creates an infinite loop of woven lines, and the caduceus alludes to Ms. Johnson’s career as a nurse. He said the bright red color directly refers to both baseball stitching and the caduceus.
Mr. Smith said the piece would be fabricated at the ART Research Enterprise foundry in Lancaster, PA; the engineer, EXP Engineering, is located within the NoMa BID and has worked on several projects for the BID. He said both firms are well known, and he is confident they will produce good work. The sculpture would be made of half-inch-thick carbon steel, which is strong, durable, and easy to maintain; this material is also able to hold the cuts and seams that would characterize the piece. The coating would be a high-performance polychrome paint. The artwork would sit on two-inch steel plates and be attached to the base with a ten-inch bolt. He presented several views of the proposed installation, noting that up-lighting would be installed around the piece. The proposed interpretive signage would be similar in appearance to the existing signage in the plaza that explains the legacy of Ms. Johnson.
Chairman Cook thanked the project team for the presentation. He said the sculpture is very interesting and that one must love anyone named Peanut, particularly if you are from Georgia.
Ms. Carter said she loves the artwork’s conception and execution, particularly the way it fuses into one beautiful piece the two great things for which Ms. Johnson was known. She expressed strong support for the decision to honor someone from the community who may not be well known but who had nevertheless done some interesting things. However, she expressed concern that the sculpture might be a visual impediment to motorists turning right onto Florida Avenue from the adjacent street, creating a dangerous situation for pedestrians, particularly if someone were turning right on a red signal. Ms. Miller expressed appreciation for the comments and said the project would also be reviewed by the District Department of Transportation and the D.C. Public Space Committee.
Mr. McCrery expressed regret that the artist was not part of the presentation, as he wished to provide his comments to her directly. He said it would be challenging to execute the sculpture because of the weak points inherent to the spherical shape, expressing concern about the potential kinking at these weak points and advising that a substantial level of craft would be required. He said there appears to be an unfortunate “inside/outside” quality to the sculpture that is most visible in the sections that overlap and intertwine; for example, the two parallel lines that articulate the entwined bands are depicted on the outside but not on the inside. He therefore encouraged developing the design to have a physical intertwining of two ribbons, although he acknowledged that this would be even more difficult to fabricate. He said another possibility would be to score the steel where the parallel lines are drawn in a three-dimensional V-groove that would create light and shadow and a stronger sense of overlap. He said the concept is very good, but that it should be followed all the way through to make the artwork as consistent as possible.
Mr. Taylor expressed appreciation for the incorporation of shifting perspectives and narratives into the artwork’s concept, which he said are beautiful features of the piece. He said one would think that this is an obvious component of most sculpture concepts, but often the perspective of the viewer is thought to be one of direct approach and static observation. He questioned how these concepts would be understood in light of Mr. McCrery’s comments regarding the inside and outside of the sculpture, and he asked if there are animations that illustrate how the sculpture would look to a person in motion; he noted issues of lighting, contrast, and parallax would need to be considered in the animation. Overall, he expressed strong support for pieces such as this that force people to move and experience the artwork from different perspectives, and he agreed that it would be nice to speak with the artist.
Secretary Luebke reiterated that the project was submitted for final review, and he noted the Commission’s apparent strong support for the concept. He said it would be reasonable to approve the submission with the direction to study the questions raised by Mr. McCrery regarding the different conditions on the inside and outside surfaces of the sculpture and the potential overlapping of the elements.
Mr. McCrey expressed surprise that the proposal was submitted for an initial review by the Commission as a final design, and he recommended that the applicant return for another review; he also requested that the artist be present at that review. Secretary Luebke suggested that the Commission not take an action and instead provide its comments to the applicant in anticipation of another review.
Mr. Cook and Ms. Carter agreed that they would like the applicant to return with a revised design that considers the Commission’s comments. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
G. D.C. Department of Building
Shipstead-Luce Act
1. SL 26-043, 2045 Parkside Drive, NW. New single-family residence. Concept. The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
2. SL 26-044, 2121 Virginia Avenue, NW. New 9-story residential building. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design, submitted by the D.C. Department of Buildings on behalf of developer Carr Properties, for the construction of a new nine-story multifamily building with a penthouse, to be located in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington, D.C. He said the project would replace an existing eight-story office building and would return the site to its earlier residential use. He said the oddly shaped triangular lot is adjacent to the federal enclave along Virginia Avenue, NW, and across from the Pan American Health Organization and the U.S. Department of State. He said the site was originally occupied by the Governor Shepherd apartment building, which was constructed in 1938 and demolished in 1985; he said that building was designed by the noted Washington architectural firm Berla & Abel in a Modern style with Art Deco details, and was featured in the Museum of Modern Art’s 1940 Guide to Modern Architecture. The existing office building, constructed in 1986, would be demolished while keeping the underground parking garage and foundations. The new residential building would be 218,000 square feet in size and contain 314 residential units, as well as a penthouse level with a courtyard pool and amenity space. He asked architects Sean Pichon and Jorel Sanchez Soto of Michael Graves Architecture to present the design.
Mr. Pinchon said the irregular site geometry calls for a tailored design that pays homage to the symbolic and historic core of the city, and he noted the site’s adjacency to several federal agencies and non-governmental organizations, as well as to the distant iconic landmarks that include the White House, the Washington Monument, and the Kennedy Center.
Mr. Soto said Virginia Avenue is an important thoroughfare in northwest Washington, as it connects the Washington Monument area of the National Mall with Georgetown and provides some of the most impactful views in the city. He summarized the history of the site, noting that Pan American Health Organization, whose nearby building was constructed in 1965, acquired the subject property and developed the current office building. He described the existing building as characteristic of the late-Modernist era, with ribbon windows and distinct towers that make it quite unique in the area. He said the context includes a one-story retail building, a hotel, and The Wray apartment building.
Mr. Soto said the current design concept is related to the context and the concept of monumentality as it is expressed in the various architectural styles seen throughout the area. He said the challenge is delivering this concept of monumentality in a new residential building, and the design team therefore decided to explore the use of bays, which are characteristic of buildings in the city, to develop a sense of hierarchy and balance. The primary facade on Virginia Avenue is characterized by a trio of bays at the entrance that would extend from the ground to the roof. Additional bays to the left of the entrance would create some balance as secondary elements to the primary bays.
Mr. Soto said the facade would be layered to break up its horizontality and create elements of verticality in the design. The facades would be clad with brick of different sizes and coursing styles inspired by the rich brick detailing of area buildings; for example, the base would be Norman brick to differentiate it from the ground plane below and standard brick above. A modern interpretation of corbelling would be used at the tops of the primary bays, with stacked and soldier coursing in the areas where the bays meet the primary facade plane. Bricks laid in a soldier course and set at an angle would be used as window surrounds. He said a tertiary facade element would be fiber cement panels, and the penthouse would be clad with metal panels. The proposed color palette is intended to blend with the context of browns, tans, and yellows. He presented several rendered views of the building, noting that the east facade, along the property line, is sparsely detailed due to the potential development of the adjacent parcel. He presented the floor plans, noting the ground floor entrance would open to a large lobby space; a typical floor would be arranged in a T-shape, with units set on either side of a north–south and an east–west corridor. He said the penthouse would have a central gathering space with an outdoor terrace and large amenity areas, as well as a pool.
Chairman Cook thanked the team for its presentation and commented favorably on the scaffolding the firm had previously designed for the Washington Monument.
Mr. Kimball expressed appreciation for the project’s thoughtful detailing, which references the built context, but he commented that it is difficult for him to envision the size of the building.
Mr. Taylor said he lives in this neighborhood and drives past the site every day. He commented positively on the design’s merging of the tone, color, and feel of this section of Virginia Avenue, which is characterized by browns and beiges; he said this is also at a major intersection, and the design seems to handle this condition well.
Mr. McCrery expressed support for the proposal to demolish the existing building and commented that there do not appear to be any objections to the design. He advised further study of brick detailing generally and the proposed window surrounds in particular, as the detail that presents itself as a jack arch does not seem structurally viable. Mr. Cook agreed that these details should be studied further.
Secretary Luebke said the design team has been responsive to previous staff consultations regarding the massing and general treatment of the building, and he said the focus is now on materials and details. He summarized the Commission’s acceptance of the design and its comments regarding the brick detailing.
Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission approved the concept design.
H. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 22/JAN/26-7, Congressional Gold Medal – Shirley Chisholm. Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke said that the U.S. Congress has authorized a posthumous Gold Medal for U.S. Representative Shirley Chisholm to honor her activism, independence, and groundbreaking achievements in politics, including her election as the first African American woman in Congress and her campaign to be the first African American to gain the nomination of a major political party for president of the United States. He said the proposed designs pair portraits and vignettes with allegory or symbols to communicate her legacy, and that required inscriptions include “Shirley Anita Chisholm” and “Act of Congress 2024.” The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed the designs at its meeting in November 2025, and its preferences would be highlighted by the Mint in its presentation. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the office of design management at the U.S. Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan said the original three-inch medal would be displayed at the Smithsonian; the Mint would also produce three-and-a-half-inch bronze duplicates. She presented the obverse designs, noting that obverse #1 is the preference of the Mint’s liaison, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, a former member of Congress who was a sponsor of the bill awarding the Gold Medal, and who was also a friend of Rep. Chisholm; obverse #1 is also the recommendation of the CCAC. She then presented the reverse designs, noting that reverse #2 is the preference of both the liaison and the CCAC.
Chairman Cook asked if the preference is for obverse #1 or #1A; Ms. Sullivan clarified that the CCAC preferred #1, noting the differences in the backgrounds of each alternative. She said the CCAC recommended changing the inscription from “I’m a Catalyst for Change” to “Unbought and Unbossed,” as well as adding “Act of Congress 2024.”
Mr. Taylor asked if the white areas seen in the images of the coins would be polished to a mirror shine or would be textured; Ms. Sullivan responded that medals usually have a finish somewhat between these two.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to recommend obverse #1 and reverse #2 as shown, without the suggested changes to the text; upon second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission adopted this action.
2. CFA 22/JAN/26-8, 2026 Semiquincentennial Circulating Coin Program (One-Dollar Coin – President Donald J. Trump). Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced candidate designs for the obverse and reverse of a one-dollar coin to be issued in conjunction with the commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, known as the Semiquincentennial or America 250. He noted that the Commission had previously provided recommendations at its October 2024 meeting for other coins in this program, which includes a dime, five different quarters, and a non-circulating half-dollar coin. In October 2025, the Mint announced the proposed issuance of a circulating one-dollar coin as part of the Semiquincentennial coin program that would feature a portrait of President Donald J. Trump on the obverse and symbols of the United States on the reverse. He noted the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) had not yet reviewed these designs, and that there are some public comments on the case.
Ms. Sullivan said the coin is authorized under the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint dollar coins for issuance in 2026 with designs emblematic of the United States Semiquincentennial. She noted that this coin would be the same size and composition as the regular Sacagawea or Native American dollar coins.
Ms. Sullivan presented the three obverse designs, featuring portraits of President Trump, and eight reverse designs featuring U.S. symbols such as the Great Seal, the American bald eagle, and the Liberty Bell.
Chairman Cook asked if the president had expressed a preference for any of the designs; Ms. Sullivan said he is still reviewing the designs, and his preference is not yet known. Mr. Kimball said he likes obverse #1 the least; Mr. McCrery agreed, commenting that the depiction of the hair is not accurate. Mr. Kimball said that obverses #1 and #2 are reminiscent of a portrait disliked by the president, and he commented positively on the statesmanlike quality conveyed by the depiction of the president’s hair in obverse #3. Mr. McCrery agreed that obverse #3 is a much better depiction of the president’s countenance. The Commission members concluded that obverse #3 is the strongest of the obverse options, although they expressed interest in knowing the president’s preference. Mr. McCrery suggested the Commission could recommend obverse #3 to the president and indicate that if he disagreed, they would reconsider.
Secretary Luebke summarized the public comments addressed to the Commission, which consist of three letters in opposition to the proposed coin. He said one letter states strong opposition to any candidate design featuring a living president, arguing that this breaks a longstanding tradition and contradicts the intent of U.S. law, which historically limits the imagery on currency to deceased individuals. The writer urges the Commission to recommend designs that honor historical figures or national symbols rather than living political leaders.
Secretary Luebke asked the Mint to address the questions of legality that had been raised; Mr. McCrery agreed. Ms. Sullivan said legal research from both the Mint and the Department of the Treasury determined that the proposed coin would not violate any laws and is legal under the law authorizing the minting of coins for the Sesquicentennial.
For the proposed reverse designs, Mr. McCrery said he is supportive of alternatives #1, #2, and #3 when paired with the preferred obverse, as they feature imagery from the Great Seal and also the Liberty Bell, which would emphasize the connection to the 250th anniversary.
Mr. Cook suggested that the image of the Liberty Bell seems trite, noting that President John F. Kennedy was honored with the presidential seal, which can stand alone as an appropriate symbol.
Mr. Taylor expressed a preference for reverse #5, which he compared favorably to early-twentieth-century coins. He noted that the relief and texture would be very prominent against a proof finish for the field of the composition, and he said pairing reverse #5 with obverse #3 would create a classic coin. He agreed that the Liberty Bell could be easily removed from reverse #5 and the texture retained, although removing it from the other designs might create too much negative space unless the eagles were repositioned. He also expressed appreciation for the line dividing the perimeter stars from the rest of the coin in reverse #5, and he said the interior composition is superior to reverse #3, which he finds to be cluttered and undefined.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to recommend obverse #3 and reverse #5, with the suggestions to remove the Liberty Bell and recenter the eagle; upon second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission adopted this action.
3. CFA 22/JAN/26-9, 2027 American Liberty High Relief 24k Gold Coin and Silver Medal Program. Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the candidate obverse and reverse designs for the 2027 issue of gold and silver medals in the American Liberty series, intended to present contemporary allegorical interpretations of the concept of liberty. He said the Mint will produce a twenty-four-carat gold coin and a fine silver medal for sale to collectors and investors. He said the obverse alternatives use varying imagery to depict the concept of liberty, with the reverses depicting an American bald eagle. Each alternative is illustrated in both the coin and medal format; these are virtually identical except for additional inscriptions that are required for the coins. He noted the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed the designs at its meeting in November 2025, and its preferences would be highlighted by the Mint in its presentation. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the office of design management at the United States Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan presented the obverse alternatives, noting the CCAC’s recommendation of obverse #16, with the only difference between the coin and medal being the inscription “In God We Trust” on the coin.
Chairman Cook said obverses #2 and #2A appear frightening, as the depiction is Medusa-like. He said the woman on obverse #1 has an appearance interestingly similar to the hooded figure from the Adams Memorial in Washington, D.C., although the face is different.
Mr. McCrery expressed a preference for obverse #6, which depicts the mythical Pegasus, commenting that it is perhaps the only allegorical work in the portfolio; the others use portraiture to depict a particular race or characteristic to convey the coin’s theme.
Mr. Taylor said he was not supportive of the highly stylized font used on the CCAC’s preference, obverse #16, noting that while he appreciates Art Nouveau typography, it does not seem appropriate here.
Ms. Sullivan presented the reverse alternatives, noting that an American bald eagle is featured throughout the designs; she noted the CCAC’s preference for reverse #11, which uses the same Art Nouveau font as the preferred obverse.
Mr. Taylor observed that it may be problematic to have animal figures on both sides of the coin. McCrery asked if the eagle is a requirement; Ms. Sullivan said the eagle is not required by law but its use on the reverse has been customary for this program, which was authorized through the Secretary of the Treasury’s statutory authority to issue gold coins and silver medals.
Mr. Taylor observed that the coin and medal would have different textures given their different metallic compositions, and he commented that the images on reverses #5 and #6 would likely retain their texture very well as a gold coin.
Mr. McCrery said reverse #7 is the only design with the most intentional depiction of a bald eagle, but he commented that the hand on which the eagle is perched is odd. Mr. Cook suggested removing the hand from the image.
Ms. Sullivan confirmed that the gold coin must include the inscription “1oz. .9999 fine gold” on the reverse. Secretary Luebke noted previous conversations about whether “one dollar” must be spelled out or if “$1” is acceptable; Ms. Sullivan said either is fine, and artists usually choose one based on the available space.
Mr. McCrery said the inscription “In God We Trust” should be included on the silver medal to be consistent with the coin. He also asked about the inscription “E Pluribus Unum,” noting it was on coin but not the medal, and he noted the consensus to include it on the medal.
Upon a motion by Mr. Kimball with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission recommended obverse #6 with the addition of “In God We Trust” on the medal, and reverse #7 with the hand removed and “E Pluribus Unum” added to the medal.
4. CFA 22/JAN/26-10, 2027 and 2028 Native American One Dollar Coins. Designs for reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the candidate reverse designs for the 2027 and 2028 issues of the ongoing series of Native American one-dollar coins, which have featured a new reverse design every year since 2009. The obverse design has been used continuously since 2000 and features a portrait of Sacagawea with her infant son; while this series is categorized as circulating coinage, Mint production since 2011 has only been for limited quantities in the collector’s market. He said the 2027 reverse will honor Dr. Susan La Flesche Picotte (1865–1915), a member of the Omaha Tribe who is widely acknowledged as the first Native American woman to earn a medical degree. All the candidate designs include the inscriptions “Dr. Susan La Flesche Picotte,“ “The United States of America,” and “$1.” He said the 2028 reverse will recognize the Native Hawaiian contribution of he’e nalu, also known as surfing. Rather than showing specific individuals, the designs feature generalized depictions and specific boards, such as long olo boards, as visual cues to indicate Native Hawaiian contributions. In 2028, the United States will host the Summer Olympics, in which surfing will be a featured sport. He said the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed the designs at its meeting in November 2025, and its preferences would be highlighted by the Mint in its presentation. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the office of design management at the U.S. Mint, to present the design alternatives.
2027 Dr. Susan La Flesche Picotte $1 Coin
Ms. Sullivan presented the 2027 designs, explaining that they were shared with required legislative stakeholders, including the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Congressional Native American Caucus of the House of Representatives, and the National Congress of American Indians. She noted the Mint also worked with a representative of the Omaha Tribe to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of the designs. She said the designs include Omaha-language words meaning “Omaha” and “doctor,” but that after the designs were created, the Mint learned that the Omaha word for “doctor” was spelled slightly incorrectly—it should end in an E, not an A, and there should be an accent over the other E—and the inscriptions will be corrected for whichever design is ultimately selected.
Ms. Sullivan said representatives of the Omaha Tribe prefer reverse #1; the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee agreed with this recommendation. The National Congress of American Indians recommended reverse #7, as Dr. Picotte was known for her horseback riding, but it deferred to the tribe’s preference for reverse #1.
Mr. Kimball said he is inclined to defer to the tribe as well; Mr. Taylor and Mr. Cook agreed. Mr. McCrery expressed a preference for reverse #7 due to its design quality, but he agreed that the tribe understands itself best and that the Commission should support the preferred alternative.
Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission recommended reverse #1.
2028 He’e Nalu (Surfing) $1 Coin
Ms. Sullivan presented the 2028 designs, explaining that the reverse will recognize the Native Hawaiian contribution of he’e nalu. She noted that there is no tribal liaison, but the Mint worked with legislative advisors, who recommended reverse #2.
Mr. McCrery expressed a strong preference for reverse #2, observing that the artist even took care to depict the four planks that compose an olo board; Mr. Taylor agreed.
Upon a motion by Mr. Kimball with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission recommended reverse #2.
5. CFA 22/JAN/26-11, 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030 Paralympic Sports Half Dollar. Designs for obverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the candidate obverse designs for the 2027–2030 Paralympic Sports Half Dollar, which is required by law to depict President John F. Kennedy. He said the current obverse of the half dollar, in use since 1964, shows an image of President Kennedy based on a portrait prepared for his presidential medal, while the presidential seal appears on the reverse. He noted that as directed by the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020, the half dollar will be redesigned and reissued each year from 2027 to 2030, with the new obverse continuing to include a likeness of Kennedy; the reverse of each coin will depict a sport tailored to athletes with a range of disabilities. He said only obverse alternatives would be presented, as the reverse designs are in development and will be presented at a later meeting. He said the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed the designs at its meeting in November 2025, and its preferences would be highlighted by the Mint in its presentation. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the office of design management at the U.S. Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan presented the obverse designs, noting that the reverses would be brought to the Commission next month, with each being emblematic of a Paralympic sport. She said the CCAC recommended obverse #2, and she noted that obverse #8A has errors in the inscriptions that would need to be corrected if selected; the artist inadvertently put the date on the wrong side and “E Pluribus Unum” must be added.
Chairman Cook said that at least half of the designs do not accurately portray President Kennedy; in some he appears too young to be president, in some he looks wooden or odd, and in several he resembles other presidents.
Mr. McCrery questioned whether a new portrait is really needed for the half dollar, as the current one is superior to all the presented alternatives; Mr. Taylor agreed.
Mr. Taylor said obverse #4 is similar to the current obverse, and he commented favorably on how the portrait overlaps with the text. Mr. McCrery agreed obverse #4 is probably the best design, although President Kennedy appears too young. Mr. Taylor noted the president’s hopeful expression, and he said the coin would feature a nice sense of contrast with a proof finish.
Mr. Cook expressed concern that President Kennedy looks young enough to be the age when he served in the Navy; he said there is even a resemblance to John F. Kennedy, Jr., whom he knew personally and at whose funeral he delivered a eulogy. He therefore suggested giving President Kennedy a slightly older appearance in obverse #4.
Mr. McCrery suggested using an elegant serif font for the inscriptions “Liberty” and “Half Dollar,” commenting that the insistence on using sans-serif fonts is tiresome. He asked if the strong line at the bottom of the portrait would be too prominent; Mr. Taylor said that line would likely not appear so harsh on the coin, and Ms. Sullivan agreed.
Mr. Kimball offered a motion to recommend obverse #4 with the suggestion to slightly age President Kennedy and to use a serif font for some of the inscriptions; upon second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission adopted this action.
6. CFA 22/JAN/26-12, 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030 Youth American Sports Quarter. Designs for obverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the candidate obverse designs for the 2027–2030 Youth American Sports Quarters, which are required by law to depict President George Washington; this likeness of President Washington must be different from the one used on the American Women Quarters program, and the reverse of each quarter must feature sports played by American youth. He said only the obverse alternatives would be presented, as the reverse designs are still being developed and will be presented at a later meeting. He said the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed the designs at its meeting in November 2025, and its preferences would be highlighted by the Mint in its presentation. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the office of design management at the U.S. Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan presented the obverse designs, noting the CCAC’s preference for obverse #1. She noted that there are several errors in the portfolio: in obverse #17, the date 2027 is incorrectly placed and “E Pluribus Unum” must be added; the same two errors are in obverse #20; and “E Pluribus Unum” must be added to obverse #22.
Chairman Cook said obverse #1 is his preference but would defer to the other Commission members. Mr. Taylor said all the alternatives are acceptable. Mr. Cook described the portfolio, noting some designs depict Washington on horseback, one of which he believes shows him in Morristown, New Jersey, where he almost slid down a riverbank but kept control of his horse; he said others feature profiles, with some showing the president from below, which is not always a flattering perspective. He concluded that most depict Washington looking like the father of the country.
Mr. Taylor expressed a preference for obverse #3, which depicts Washington as general of the Continental Army, aligning well with the country’s 250th anniversary; he suggested the likeness could be adjusted slightly. He said obverse #2 is similar, but #3 is his preference. Mr. Cook agreed, but commented that President Washington looks too young, and requested that the portrait should be aged slightly. Mr. Taylor noted that while obverse #1 is strong, universal, and timeless, obverse #3 is quite nice because it refers to the Revolutionary War instead of the presidency.
Upon a motion by Mr. Kimball with second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission recommended obverse #3 with the suggestion that President Washington’s likeness be aged slightly.
Vice Chairman McCrery publicly thanked the Commission’s staff for its excellent preparation and work. Chairman Cook seconded this comment, and Mr. Taylor added his agreement. Secretary Luebke thanked his staff, who he said make the Commission’s meetings possible.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary