The meeting was convened at 401 F Street NW, Room 311, at 9:02 a.m.
Members present:
Hon. Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., Chairman
Hon. James C. McCrery II, Vice Chairman
Hon. Mary Anne Carter
Hon. Chamberlain Harris
Hon. Pamela Hughes Patenaude
Hon. Matthew Taylor
Staff present:
Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Christopher Berger
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 21 May meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the May 2026 meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance, and that no questions or comments had been received. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the minutes. Secretary Luebke noted that the approved minutes would be made available on the Commission’s website.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings: 16 July, 17 September, and 15 October 2026. He said these dates are consistent with the calendar published at the beginning of the year, and that there would be no Commission meeting in August. He added that the calendar for 2027 would be presented in July.
C. Inspection of two objects to be acquired by the Freer Gallery of Art. Secretary Luebke reported that it is Chairman Cook’s intention to inspect and approve two objects proposed for acquisition into the permanent collection of the National Museum of Asian Art for the Freer Gallery of Art collection, as required by a codicil to the will of the museum’s original donor, Charles Lang Freer. Mr. Luebke described the first object as a late 18th- to early 19th-century Japanese Edo Period hirado ware vessel, made of porcelain with cobalt pigment under clear glaze, depicting scenes with Chinese figures celebrating the Spring Lustration festival. The vessel features aquatic themes, and its shape suggests use as a waste vessel for the preparation of matcha or sencha. It is offered by collectors Victor and Marina Whitman. The second object is a contemporary work created in 2023 by the Chinese artist Tai Xiangzhou, titled The Great Way of Auspicious Metal III. It is a work of ink on paper in a traditional horizontal scroll format, part of a series illustrating ancient Chinese bronze ritual festival vessels held in institutional collections. The third in the series, it features objects exclusively from the Freer Gallery’s own collection. It is offered by collectors Clara Xing and Ted T. Wang. Mr. Luebke said that following the meeting, the Commission would visit the Freer Gallery to inspect both objects and for the Chairman to formalize his approval. Chairman Cook expressed his enthusiasm for the upcoming visit to the Freer, which he described as an extraordinary institution with an amazing collection, and he welcomed the Commission members to visit along with him.
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.
Appendix I – Government Submissions (Consent Calendar): Mr. Fox said that the consent calendar includes eleven items and that no changes had been made to the draft circulated to the Commission. He also noted that two projects previously delegated to staff had been approved: the final design for Burrville Elementary School, and a temporary donor plaque at the Desert Shield Desert Storm Memorial. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes seven items; there is also one case that will be considered on the agenda (SL 26-107). Since the draft appendix was issued, two changes had been made: SL 26-105 was held open for review in a future month, and the recommendation for SL 26-097 was changed to no objection following revisions by the applicant. She noted minor changes throughout the appendix based on receipt of supplemental materials, and she said supplemental materials are still pending for five cases, with staff continuing to work with applicants to resolve minor issues. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Berger said that the appendix includes thirty-two items, and that two changes had been made since the draft was circulated to the Commission: OG 26-226 was changed to a denial recommendation because the applicant did not respond or provide revised documents as requested; for case OG 26-244, supplemental materials addressing conditions for approval had been received. Chairman Cook asked whether the case involving the non-responsive applicant was the one discussed with the Commission members prior to the meeting; Secretary Luebke clarified that it was not, and Mr. Berger said that the case involves a simple grout replacement project and that applicants occasionally do not respond. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
B. U.S. Department of War
CFA 18/JUN/26-1, Pentagon Reservation, 220 Boundary Channel Drive, Arlington, VA. New single-story building. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design submitted by the Department of War [Defense] for the construction of a new single-story building to house the Pentagon Force Protection Agency’s Counter Assault Team (CAT). The facility would be located on the northeast side of the Pentagon Reservation, adjacent to an existing building formerly used for a childcare program but now to be used as a motor pool building. The proposed CAT program includes office space, conference and briefing rooms, storage, toilet rooms, a two-vehicle garage, and utility areas. The proposed construction method is a form of 3D printing in which a special concrete material is mixed on site and deposited in layers with a robotic boom arm. He said the proposed facades would have a strongly horizontal composition with a textured or woven appearance, with vertical doors and windows designed as narrow recesses within the rounded forms of the concrete walls, and a metal cornice or overhang tying the composition together. Secretary Luebke asked two representatives from ICON Technology—Julian Ocampo, vice president of building design, and Phil Richardson, senior architect—to present the design.
Mr. Ocampo provided an overview of ICON’s business, noting that the company has built over 254 structures in the United States and Mexico, with experience in the federal government and military sectors. He noted that ICON is currently constructing ten barracks at Fort Bliss over six months, compared to the typical twenty-four-month delivery timeline; the firm has also built the largest 3D-printed neighborhood in the world, consisting of one hundred homes north of Austin, Texas.
Mr. Richardson said the project location is a grassy area near the existing motor pool facility, on the northeastern side of the Pentagon Reservation. The building would have a rectangular footprint with rounded corners; the floor plan would be organized along a central corridor, with a pedestrian entrance on one end and a two-car garage at the other. The plan includes a briefing and conference room, office and support spaces, and restrooms with lockers; storage rooms would be accessed from the garage, with an electrical room and mechanical room at the far end. The building’s height would match the adjacent existing structure. The roof would be flat, draining to three low points connected to existing stormwater infrastructure, with overflow scuppers visible on the building facade.
Mr. Richardson said the proposed exterior wall construction would consist of multiple 3D-printed layers, referred to as “beads,” with an insulated cavity infill. A cast-in-place bond beam at the top would tie the walls together and support a series of structural trusses. A metal overhang would run along the roofline, providing shelter over the building openings and serving as a defining geometric feature. The exterior concrete is shown in a natural gray finish without tinting, reflecting feedback received during a consultation meeting with the Commission staff. He said a basket-weave texture would be applied by the printer at window and wall recesses to accentuate the curvilinear forms; other walls would be a clad with colored metal panels that would relate to colors found elsewhere on the campus. The flat roof would be finished in a light color consistent with applicable requirements.
Mr. Cook asked about the structure situated between the proposed building and the Pentagon. Matt Muhlenkamp, director of engineering and construction services for the Pentagon’s Washington Headquarters Services division, identified it as an electrical distribution and switchgear building for the Pentagon. Mr. Cook asked how the proposed roof would drain; Mr. Richardson said the primary drainage would connect through interior walls into existing stormwater infrastructure below grade, with scuppers handling the overflow.
Mr. McCrery said that the President issued the “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again” Executive Order in August 2025, which is applicable to all federal buildings. He said that the Pentagon is a noble Classical building in the military mode, and that support buildings on its perimeter should participate in and extend its architectural tradition. He said the proposed design does not do that, nor does it comply with the requirements or the spirit of the Executive Order. He offered a motion that the proposal be rejected and that a new design consistent with both the letter and spirit of the Executive Order be prepared. He added that while the technology is of interest, technology should not drive design, particularly in Washington, D.C. Chairman Cook invited further discussion.
Mr. Taylor said he is familiar with ICON’s work, having visited their structures in Austin, Texas, and he asked why 3D printing was chosen for this particular structure and whether there was a strategic or national security rationale. Mr. Muhlenkamp responded that the 3D printing technology has been through a prototyping program with the Department of War and that the primary drivers for its selection were speed, efficiency, and cost. He noted that the CAT unit already operates from this area of the Pentagon Reservation and that this project is on the critical path of a broader project portfolio, with precedent and subsequent projects depending on its timely delivery. He said that if the rationale could be reduced to a single word, it would be speed, and that the intention is for this project to serve as a showcase for the transition of prototype technology into production. Mr. Taylor asked whether the undertaking is essentially a proof-of-concept project for operating bases and similar sites, analogous to an experimental platform. Mr. Muhlenkamp clarified that proof-of-concept work has already been completed at Fort Mabry and Fort Bliss, and that this project would represent the first production use of the technology within the Department of War’s portfolio.
Ms. Carter asked if there would be a housing component to the project. Mr. Muhlenkamp said the building is operational only—with no housing, providing space for planning, strategic functions, load-out, and equipment storage specific to CAT operations. Ms. Carter asked whether the adjacent building is currently a childcare facility; Mr. Muhlenkamp said it was formerly a childcare facility, and that the CAT currently occupies part of that building, which is being renovated and repurposed for the motor pool. Ms. Carter said that she is familiar with 3D printing technology, noting its use in Knoxville, Tennessee, as early as 2012, and that if speed is the primary concern, she supports its use. However, she agreed with Mr. McCrery’s position on the design, commenting that the Pentagon is a beautiful building in its own way, and that the adjacent substation cited earlier reflects the overall character of the campus, whereas the proposed design looks completely out of place in this setting. She agreed that adherence to the Executive Order would lead to a better outcome.
Ms. Patenaude asked when the project was initiated and whether Secretary of War Hegseth had approved the design. Mr. Muhlenkamp said the project was initiated in approximately June or July 2025, and that to his knowledge the specific design had not yet gone to the Secretary for approval.
Chairman Cook said that when the project returns, the design team should also examine the roof strategy, noting that the shedding of water is a principle learned from ancient Greece and that flat roofs are problematic, particularly in a military context. He suggested looking at the proposed exit pavilion for the White House Visitors Center as a potential reference. Secretary Luebke noted that he believes that pavilion is proposed to have a flat roof. Chairman Cook said the Commission had moved past that decision, and he encouraged the design team to study such examples before returning.
Chairman Cook confirmed the consensus to reject the concept design and to request that a new design be prepared for future Commission review that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again” Executive Order.
C. D.C. Department of General Services
CFA 18/JUN/26-2, Seaton Elementary School, 1503 10th Street, NW. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for renovations and additions to Seaton Elementary School in the Shaw neighborhood of Northwest D.C. He noted that the existing 60,000-square-foot school building was designed by local African American architect Albert Cassell and constructed in 1969, and that the school is near the Carter G. Woodson National Historical Site, an important location in the establishment of the study of African and African American history. The existing school building consists of a three-story brick structure with an attached gym volume on the east and a one-story octagonal wing on the south. He said the proposal would retain the structure of the existing building while replacing its late modernist facades of tan brick and substantially renovating its interior to accommodate an expanded contemporary school program. The rear octagonal wing is proposed to be demolished, with a new two-story wing to the southwest of the main building and a new cafeteria to the southeast. The new landscape design proposes an entrance plaza to the north, an open courtyard to the south, new playgrounds, a synthetic turf playing field, and a parking lot. He asked Julianna Von Zumbusch, an associate at CGS Architects, to present the design.
Ms. von Zumbusch said the site is flat, with generous playground and parking areas. She said Rhode Island Avenue to the north is a more monumental street befitting a civic building, while the other street frontages have a more residential character. The site lies at the edge of the Shaw Historic District, which extends to the south, giving the northern frontage along Rhode Island Avenue a somewhat different character than the southern edges. She said the existing facades reflect an International Style character that is rigorous but lacks a clear definition of entry, with each of the three masses conceived as a discrete pavilion joined by small connectors, resulting in a lack of cohesion. She identified the replacement of the exterior as necessary to meet net-zero energy requirements, citing significant challenges with the thermal performance of the existing envelope; she also noted the presence of hazardous materials requiring remediation as part of the project. She said that while the large number of windows is an asset in some respects, the Rhode Island Avenue facade presents both sound and thermal concerns.
Ms. von Zumbusch noted the contrasting character of the multipurpose wing, which has no windows, and the low octagonal wing, which was originally designed as a preschool wing; although the school still has a robust preschool program, it has outgrown its original space and is now distributed throughout the facility. Regarding the neighborhood context, she described Rhode Island Avenue as the primary school entrance, with adjacent buildings of three to four stories including Banneker High School, a YWCA building with richly detailed brickwork directly across the street, and the Shiloh Baptist Church, with which the school shares parking and maintains a community relationship. She noted that the rear of the church faces the school site across an alley, and that one goal of the project is to screen that back-of-house condition. She described the residential context to the south as consisting largely of two- to three-story rowhouses that contribute to the historic district, displaying a wide range of color and expression.
Ms. von Zumbusch cited civic building precedents in the neighborhood, including Garrison and Cleveland Elementary Schools. She said that some of the historic public school buildings in the area typically feature a two-story grouping with larger window bays balanced by an additional attic story or base level, belt coursing to relate to the scale of adjacent buildings, and a high parapet with articulation. She also noted the use of differentiated base course materials and belt coursing in the design of the former Shaw Junior High School and the YWCA across the street.
Ms. von Zumbusch said the proposed concept design is intended to address the current lack of a defined entry by bringing the entrance closer to Rhode Island Avenue to give the building a civic presence and to provide students with a sense of arrival. The entrance would be given extra height and a projecting canopy to announce the entry point and to provide weather protection. A new cafeteria wing would replace the demolished octagonal wing, and the construction of a new early education wing with pre-K classrooms on the first floor and specials classrooms on the second floor would create a continuation of the urban fabric along 10th Street. Extending the existing academic wing and simplifying the massing would create a backdrop for the new entrance and a more protected courtyard—an important element given the school community’s strong emphasis on outdoor activities. She also noted that the existing circulation along the academic wing is quite long, and the project seeks to broaden and improve connectivity through the new connector.
Ms. von Zumbusch said the proposed site plan seeks to maintain as much of the existing play area and community garden as possible, with generous playground space in the new courtyard and reduced parking maintained via alley access. New bioretention areas would be provided in discrete locations. She noted that significant heritage trees along Rhode Island Avenue influence the configuration of the front entrance, which is redesigned to feel more welcoming, with an accessible ramp and broad steps opening to a plaza. Regarding the floor plans, she noted that the basement is largely existing and will house the majority of mechanical spaces. The existing multipurpose room would be converted into a gymnasium, providing the school with separate gymnasium and cafeteria facilities for the first time and greatly increasing programming flexibility. Pre-K, kindergarten, and specialty classrooms would be clustered on the first floor, along with a new welcome center and administration pushed forward to the street. The second floor would house first and second grade classrooms and a generous library overlooking the field. The third floor would accommodate upper grades, with support spaces distributed throughout the plan. The roof plan would feature extensive solar panels, as the project is required to meet all of its electrical capacity on-site through net-zero energy measures, and a raised parapet would screen the solar panels and provide fall protection.
Ms. von Zumbusch said the proposed material palette includes red brick as the primary facade cladding, with cast-stone accents throughout and metal panels at the connecting hyphens. She noted that the two brick colors shown in renderings are used to distinguish foreground from background elements, and that only one brick color is actually proposed. Fenestration would be introduced on the multipurpose wing, now the gymnasium; projecting bays would articulate the long facades, with brick rustication tying window groupings together vertically, with soldier coursing and cast stone belt courses in various locations. The courtyard facades would include similar treatments on both the existing structure and new addition. The existing elevator tower on the west side would be retained, and the alley facades would include niches for public art, which could possibly be in dialogue with the adjacent Woodson Historical Site.
Chairman Cook said he is impressed with the work, commenting that the project has successfully addressed the previous lack of a defined entrance by creating a prominent new entrance, and he suggested centering the doors to give the entry greater visual impact. He expressed support for the design’s sensitivity to the architecturally rich neighborhood and for its responsiveness to both the large- and small-scale architectural legacy of the area. He asked what the former Shaw Junior High School building is now used for; Ms. von Zumbusch said she believes it is an apartment building. Secretary Luebke added that the 1890s building was acquired in the early 1980s by a Methodist church and converted to apartments; before that, it was Shaw Junior High, and it was originally built as the McKinley Manual High School, designed by Chicago architect Henry Ives Cobb. Mr. Cook asked what hazardous materials are present; Ms. von Zumbusch said that non-friable asbestos was found, and that it must be removed according to government policy.
Mr. McCrery said that while there is an asymmetry to the entrance placement, he finds it acceptable since the large canopy would serve to unify the overall composition. He said that the proposed facades feature an appropriate ratio of opening to wall; however, he suggested adding a window directly above the entrance, citing the blank expanse of brick. Regarding the fenestration at the cafeteria wing, he recommended lowering the windowsills to approximately 24” above the floor so that students would be able enjoy the view of the outdoors while eating, which would significantly improve the interior experience of that room.
Chairman Cook offered a motion to approve the concept design with the comments provided; upon second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission adopted this action.
E. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
SL 26-107, 1445 New York Avenue, NW. Renovations and additions to building. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for the renovation of and additions to an existing office building located at the intersection of New York Avenue and 15th Street, NW, a prominent corner across from the Treasury Department and near the White House. He said the original six-story block, completed in 1888, was designed for the National Savings and Trust Company by Philadelphia architect James H. Windrim in an eclectic Queen Anne style; the building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. In 1983–84, the Commission approved an addition consisting of a six-story historicist-style extension, with an additional three stories above to create a nine-story tower-like massing further to the east. The existing material palette includes red brick and sandstone, along with various decorative metal elements.
Secretary Luebke summarized the major elements of the proposal: recladding much of the 1980s addition with a glazed curtainwall; adding a roof terrace on the seventh floor of the lower building; converting the existing mechanical penthouse to occupiable space, with a roof deck; adding a new interior atrium; and infilling some areas to create larger floorplates. The proposed material palette for the curtainwall includes warm-toned metal mullions, projecting vertical fins, and spandrel glass. He asked the design team from Gensler—Abram Goodrich, design director, and Laurent Lisimachio, design principal—to present the design.
Mr. Goodrich said that the building owner, Ponte Gadea, is known to acquire prominent buildings for long-term investment rather than short-term turnover, and that the renovation is being undertaken to keep the building competitive and relevant in the current office market, where amenity spaces—rooftop terraces, conference centers, and similar features—are increasingly essential for attracting tenants. He said the property is a contributing resource to both the Financial Historic District and the Lafayette Square Historic District; the 1984 expansion by Weihe, Black, Jeffries, Strassman & Dove, predecessor to the firm WDG, is considered a non-contributing feature. He said that the building is shorter than most of its neighbors, and that it steps upward to the east where the surrounding buildings on the block rise to approximately 130’. He identified the historic Hibbs Building directly to the north, characterized by a distinctive mansard roof with copper trim, and he noted that the 1990s office building immediately to the east had been converted to residential use.
Mr. Goodrich described the historic Queen Anne building as adventurous and eclectic, with a variety of details at the cornice; he said staff of the D.C. Historic Preservation Office had characterized the roofline as “lacy,” reflecting the fine articulation and detail at that level. He noted the arcuated cupola on the corner turret, with a curving pediment containing a clock, and he said that Truist Bank currently occupies the historic banking hall on the ground floor. Mr. Goodrich described four distinct eras of construction visible along the New York Avenue facade: the original 1888 corner building; successive eastward expansions in 1919 and 1925 that replicated the original architectural expression; and the 1984 addition, whose nine-story section is set back approximately 7.5’ from the primary facade plane along New York Avenue. He noted that the addition’s ground-level arcade currently accommodates the main building entrance alongside a loading dock and an egress stair door.
Mr. Goodrich presented a series of street-level views developed from site photography, emphasizing that the design team’s 3D-model reflects actual pedestrian conditions. He identified the primary view from the northeast corner of the Treasury Building site, where the full extent of the historic building and most of the 1980s addition is visible. He noted that from Pennsylvania Avenue near the Milken Center, the view of the building begins to be obscured, and that from the far side of Lafayette Square at 17th Street, the building is effectively screened by vegetation and is not visible. He said that the existing rooftop conditions include an unoccupied mechanical penthouse, a walled roof terrace, and an unutilized rooftop area, and he noted that the 2016 zoning changes enabled a citywide trend of rooftop amenity development.
Mr. Lisimachio said the proposed work is intended to keep the historic building in command of the street by lightening the character of the setback part of the 1984 addition, which he characterized as visually “pressing” on the historic building from above. He said the project’s major scope consists of the replacement of the non-historicist facades of the 1980s addition, two new roof terraces, the conversion of the mechanical penthouse into habitable space, and an arcade enclosure. The secondary scope includes fire stair extensions to the rooftop, the infilling of a courtyard at the rear, and the removal of security bars from the historic ground-floor windows. He said the design concept deliberately avoids competing with the original facades, proposing instead to visually lighten part of the 1984 addition with metal and glass in warm bronze or copper tones that are complementary to the historic building. He described the curved glass corner on the upper levels of the addition as an intentional reference to the historic turret, replacing an existing 45-degree chamfer. He said the curtain wall would have 9” projecting fins and 11” projecting bands that would give depth and shadow to the building, referencing the texture and rhythm of the historic masonry. He asked for the Commission’s advice on whether a copper or a bronze tone would be appropriate, noting that copper would use an existing material in the historic building, and a bronze finish would be more similar to the tonality of the brick. He presented side-by-side elevation comparisons of the existing and proposed conditions along New York Avenue and from the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 15th Street, characterizing the intent as making the 1984 nine-story mass visually recede. He said the two bays of the 1980s arcade adjacent to the primary entrance would be infilled with a storefront system, citing concerns that the open arcade would create a problematic condition for an office building of this caliber.
Mr. Goodrich provided a brief description of the material samples laid out before the Commission members, identifying the brick sample as representing the existing building, two copper samples showing varying degrees of patina, a sample of dark anodized aluminum, and several warm-toned metal options evocative of copper. He noted that two glass samples are also shown—one with a green cast that could relate to other roof structures in the neighborhood, and one with a more amber tone that would reinforce the overall warmth of the historic building.
Chairman Cook thanked the presentation team and invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Mr. McCrery asked what the space would be inside the proposed enclosed arcade; Mr. Lisimachio said the ground floor is intended to be leased to tenants and would likely function as event or conference space rather than conventional office space. Mr. McCrery confirmed that it would not contain retail space.
Mr. Cook commented that the project brings together a number of competing traditions in the city, citing John Carl Warnecke’s work for the Executive Office of the President on Lafayette Square, which established a significant precedent by preserving the federal townhouse facades that had initially been proposed to be completely demolished and constructing a modern office building behind them. He said he finds the proposed curtain wall to be a regression from that tradition; however, he expressed support for the rooftop modifications. He asked for clarification regarding the arcade, specifically whether the masonry elements were being removed or adjusted at only the two identified bays. Mr. Lisimachio confirmed that only the arcade itself would be infilled with glass, and that all masonry above and the lower stories to the east side would remain unchanged; the only area changing would be the facade of the setback part of the addition beginning at the third story.
Mr. McCrery asked whether any changes are proposed for the fenestration of the historic building; Mr. Lisimachio confirmed that no such changes are proposed. Mr. McCrery summarized that the improvements are limited to the rooftop, the non-historicist 1980s facades, and the two arcade bays, which Mr. Lisimachio confirmed. Mr. McCrery acknowledged that the proposal is an improvement over the 1980s addition, commenting that it would be difficult to design something worse. He asked why the project team is committed to retaining the 1984 facade at the loading dock rather than extending the new treatment further. Mr. Lisimachio said the team had initially felt that the continuous cornice line and horizontal coursing of that section created a strong connection between the two buildings, but he acknowledged that the team did not feel strongly about retaining it. Mr. McCrery noted that the argument for recladding the easternmost bays would apply equally to the loading dock area, and he asked why the new treatment was not extended continuously. Mr. Lisimachio said that he would personally prefer to change the loading dock cladding to be continuous with the stories above it, and that he believes the client would be amenable to that change.
Mr. McCrery asked for clarification on the building’s primary entry configuration, confirming that the main entrance to the entire building is currently located at the easternmost bay of the arcade; he suggested that the entrance be relocated to the center arch. Mr. Lisimachio cited a structural constraint to relocating the entrance, noting that the lobby is currently double-height throughout that area and a slab is present at the arcade location, though he suggested something could likely be done. Mr. McCrery asked whether the windows in the transitional facade section were as shown as existing or reflected the proposal; Mr. Lisimachio confirmed that those were existing conditions. Mr. McCrery said that given the overall quality of the design approach, retaining the transitional facade represents a design inconsistency. He said that the 1984 transitional facade was likely to be removed in another 30 years, as is being proposed for the non-historicist addition, and he noted that its materials and proportions were at odds with both the historic building and the proposed glass system. He observed that the transitional facade has a notably thin compositional character relative to the rich detailing of the historic corner.
Mr. McCrery noted that a common historic preservation strategy in Washington involves retaining a historic facade as a screen in front of a contemporary box, and he suggested that by retaining the 1984 transitional facade, the team was inadvertently participating in that tradition. He cited the term “façadomy” as a critique of that approach. Mr. Goodrich said this was a topic of robust internal debate, including with CFA staff. He said the fundamental problem with the 1984 addition is not its architectural quality per se, but rather that its brick cladding distorts the perception of the historic mass—making the five-story historic building appear as the “foot” of a nine-story brick “boot.” He said that replacing the cladding with glass would restore the feeling of the original historic volume by contrast, and he acknowledged that Mr. McCrery was correctly identifying the risk of stepping into the “façadomy” tradition. He said that the team had considered extending a transitional historicist expression in masonry across the easternmost bays, but that approach had not felt right to them. Mr. McCrery asked Mr. Goodrich to clarify what he meant by “extending the expression”—whether that means replicating the transitional masonry facade in brick up to the five-story line and then placing a glass box on top. Mr. Goodrich confirmed that this is what had been studied.
Mr. Cook asked if these studies are in the presentation; Mr. Goodrich said they had not been included. Secretary Luebke confirmed that staff had requested such studies, noting that the concept was to acknowledge the historic street wall at approximately the five-story height—not necessarily with all punched windows, but with some combination of bays or masonry treatment that would reinforce the street wall—and then allow the tower above to be its own contemporary expression. He said that staff had seen a number of studies but that the team had elected not to bring them forward.
Mr. McCrery said that when the Commission staff, which works on behalf of the Commission and understand its expectations, requests that materials be brought to a review, applicants should bring them. He expressed his own desire to see the studies and suggested that most Commission members would share that interest, as such materials can be informative in ways that are not always apparent in advance. He noted that the studies might have assisted the Commission in ways that a completed design cannot. Mr. Lisimachio said that the decision not to bring the alternative studies reflected both his firm’s and the client’s conclusion that retaining the 1984 transitional section was the right choice, and that extending the historic expression further would feel disingenuous and almost disrespectful to the authentic historic portion. Mr. McCrery questioned the word “disingenuous,” pointing out that each of the earlier eastward additions to the building had themselves been extensions of the original architectural language, none of which were considered disingenuous at the time. He said it was entirely legitimate to prefer not to extend the masonry treatment, but that preference should be stated as such rather than characterized as a matter of authenticity. He added that he disagrees with the suggestion that the 1984 transitional facade is not itself historic, describing it as a good example of Postmodern design that is part of the building’s history and worth recognizing as such. Mr. McCrery reiterated his view that when staff requests alternative studies on behalf of the Commission, those studies should be presented.
Chairman Cook welcomed further discussion from Commission members before a motion is considered. Secretary Luebke advised that no formal action is necessary given the concept-level review and the Commission’s intent to have the applicant return with additional information. Chairman Cook agreed this would be the appropriate course. Secretary Luebke confirmed that the Commission’s position could be stated as directing the team to come back with further studies at a subsequent review.
Mr. McCrery requested that the next submission include renderings that clearly illustrate the differences between design alternatives, specifically showing the appearance and character of each option side by side. He also expressed interest in the option of a green patinated metal finish, suggesting it could help tie the new work to the historic copper elements and create a dialogue with the mansard of the neighboring Hibbs Building. Mr. McCrery further requested that the two distinct color palettes be shown as separate rendered options so that Commission members could evaluate them clearly.
Mr. Cook asked what is proposed below the glass dome shown in the aerial rooftop view. Mr. Lisimachio explained that a new atrium was being introduced by cutting through the floor plates below to bring natural light into the deep office floors, which currently receive little daylight. He said the atrium would extend down to the first floor and would be aligned with an existing laylight in the historic bank interior. He added that although the interior of the building is not landmarked, the team had found a strong case for retaining many historic interior elements of the bank, including that laylight, which is currently artificially illuminated. Chairman Cook asked whether the bank interior is publicly accessible; Mr. Lisimachio confirmed it is. Mr. Goodrich noted that the building had a light well added in the 1920s, creating a partial doughnut configuration, and that the 1984 renovation infilled that well to gain usable floor area, leaving those spaces very dark. Mr. Lisimachio said it is rare for a client to agree to remove floor area, as the proposed atrium would require.
Secretary Luebke confirmed that the Commission would not take a formal action on the case, and that staff would continue to work with the design team in advance of their return submission. Chairman Cook thanked the presenters. At that point, Bobby Blair, a member of the project team, approached the podium, stating that the team did have the studies that had been requested. Secretary Luebke responded that submitted materials are required to be included with the case submission prior to the meeting, and that introducing new materials on the day of the meeting would create an unworkable process. Chairman Cook indicated the Commission would see the team at a future meeting. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary