The meeting was convened at 401 F Street NW, Room 311, at 9:04 a.m.
Members present:
Hon. Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., Chairman
Hon. James C. McCrery II, Vice Chairman
Hon. Chamberlain Harris
Hon. Pamela Hughes Patenaude
Staff present:
Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Rachel Rettaliata
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 16 July meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the July 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 with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission approved the minutes.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings: 15 October and 19 November 2026, and 21 January 2027. He said that these dates are consistent with the calendar published at the beginning of the year, and that there would be no Commission meeting in December.
C. Confirmation of the approval of recommendations for the U.S. Mint Freedom 250 Grand Prix Roger Penske Medal (CFA 17/SEP/26-1). Secretary Luebke asked the Commission to confirm the action recommended by Commission members via email vote on 12 August for the design of the Freedom 250 Grand Prix Roger Penske Medal, submitted by the United States Mint. He noted that the recommendation had been for obverse #5 and reverse #3, and that the vote had been taken out of session due to the project’s compressed schedule and the absence of an August meeting. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission confirmed the out-of-session vote.
D. Anniversary of the Old Georgetown Act, 22 September 1950. Secretary Luebke noted that 22 September will mark the 76th anniversary of the Old Georgetown Act of 1950, which established the National Historic Landmark district—the fifth oldest in the country—under the jurisdiction of the Commission of Fine Arts and its Old Georgetown Board, a three-member expert panel of architects that meets monthly to consider the design of projects in the district. He noted that the agency reviews approximately 350 cases per year under this jurisdiction, with the board’s recommendations appearing in the Old Georgetown Act appendix for review and approval by the Commission each month.
E. Introduction of a new staff member, Rachel Rettaliata. Secretary Luebke introduced Rachel Rettaliata, the Commission’s new staff member joining the Old Georgetown Board staff. He said Ms. Rettaliata comes from San Antonio, Texas, where she spent seven years with the San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation as heritage programs manager and a senior historic preservation specialist. She holds a Master of Science in historic preservation from the University of Texas at Austin and an undergraduate degree in history and international affairs from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. She was also a Fulbright researcher in the Republic of Moldova and participated in the U.S. ICOMOS International Exchange Program in Lithuania. Secretary Luebke welcomed her to the Commission.
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 twelve items and that no substantive changes had been made to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Ms. Harris 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 thirty-one items; there is also one case that will be considered on the agenda (SL 26-157). She said three cases are being held open for review in a future month (SL 26-128, SL 26-130, and SL 26-141) and one recommendation was changed to no objection following revisions by the applicant (SL 26-153). She said staff is waiting for supplemental materials for thirteen cases and expects to continue working with the applicants to resolve minor issues. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission approved the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix. Secretary Luebke noted that the multiple changes to the Shipstead-Luce appendix between the draft and final versions reflect the compressed review timeline, as the cases are not received until two weeks before the CFA meeting.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Ms. Rettaliata said that the appendix includes twenty-five items, and that there were no changes to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.C and II.E.1. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without presentations.
C. Department of the Navy
CFA 17/SEP/26-4, Naval Research Laboratory, intersection of Smith Street and Magazine Road, SW. New laboratory building. Concept. (Previous: CFA 19/MAR/26-4) Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design submission for a new laboratory building at the Naval Research Laboratory; he noted the Commission’s consensus to approve the project without a formal presentation. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission approved the concept submission and delegated the final review to the staff. Mr. McCrery expressed his appreciation to the Department of the Navy for the thoroughness and quality of its response to the Commission’s previous comments, commenting that it is a very good design.
E. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 17/SEP/26-8, Ketcham Elementary School, 1919 15th Street, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 19/FEB/26-6) Secretary Luebke introduced the final submission for renovations and additions to Ketcham Elementary School, noting that the Commission members had found the design responsive to their previous comments. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission approved the final design without a presentation.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.1.
B. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 17/SEP/26-2, 2028 American Innovation One Dollar Coin Program. Designs for the twelfth set of coins: Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Final. Secretary Luebke introduced the final design submission for the 2028 American Innovation One Dollar Coin Program, which honors innovation and innovators with a coin from each state, the District of Columbia, and the five American territories. The series began with an introductory coin in 2018 and will continue through 2032; this is the twelfth set of coins and would feature Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The common obverse design for all coins in the program is an adaptation of the Statue of Liberty design used on the presidential $1 coin. Each reverse will feature the name of the state or territory and an illustration emblematic of a significant innovation, innovator, or group of innovators from that state, along with the inscription “United States of America.” He said that the selection of honorees is made in consultation with the governor or chief executive of each state or territory, and that these are non-circulating coins available only for purchase directly from the Mint. He noted that the Mint would present the single theme established for each state’s coin along with design alternatives, and he introduced Roger Vasquez, Acting Chief of the Office of Design Management at the United States Mint, to present the four coins.
Colorado. Mr. Vasquez said the identified innovation for Colorado is the ‘Mosco’ variety of the Pueblo chile, an agricultural innovation and a cultural symbol of the state. He said chiles likely arrived in Colorado’s Arkansas River Valley in the 1840s with Mexican traders and settlers; Native American, Hispanic, and Italian farmers adapted and cultivated the plants to the region’s hot summers and dry climate. Over generations, a distinctive local variety gradually emerged: the Pueblo chile. The modern Mosco Pueblo chile owes its creation to Dr. Mike Bartolo and his team at the Arkansas Valley Research Center. Dr. Bartolo is the grandson of Italian American immigrants who came to Colorado in the 1900s and is a vegetable crop specialist with Colorado State University. His uncle, Harry Mosco, was among the local farmers who grew Pueblo chiles; when Mosco died in 1988, he left his seed stock to the family. Dr. Bartolo received those seeds and began growing a new crop, quickly identifying one plant that grew upward toward the sun rather than hanging downward like other pepper varieties. The pepper also grew larger than other varieties and developed significantly thicker walls, which allowed it to tolerate roasting without splitting or losing its juices—well suited to the region’s traditional cooking methods. In 2002, Dr. Bartolo distributed Mosco seeds to growers around Pueblo, and the pepper quickly gained popularity throughout the state.
Mr. Vasquez presented the common obverse design used throughout the series and then proceeded to the reverse design alternatives. He said reverse #1 depicts a Pueblo chile plant in the foreground with the Rocky Mountains in the background, signifying the plant’s role as an integral part of Colorado’s natural heritage; this design is the primary preference of the governor of Colorado and the secondary preference of Dr. Bartolo. Reverse #4 features a branch of the Pueblo chile plant with its peppers reaching skyward while framed by the sun, reflecting the growing trait that defines the variety; this is the secondary preference of the governor and the primary preference of Dr. Bartolo. Reverse #7 exhibits a bundle of Pueblo chiles with a decorative banner marking the plant’s role in Colorado’s cultural celebrations, such as the annual Pueblo Chile and Frijoles Festival; this is the tertiary preference of the governor.
Ms. Harris expressed a preference for reverse #1, but questioned whether the wording might be lost in the artwork. Mr. McCrery commented that reverse #1 is the best and most appropriate for Colorado because it shows the landscape and the Rocky Mountains, thereby locating the coin geographically, which he considers an important aspect of the coin series; Ms. Patenaude agreed.
Chairman Cook confirmed that reverse #1 is the governor’s primary preference, and he offered a motion to recommend approval of reverse #1; upon second by Ms. Harris, the Commission adopted this action.
Nebraska. Mr. Vasquez presented the Nebraska coin, for which the identified innovation is center-pivot irrigation. He said the arrays of circular fields seen across the American agricultural landscape today reflect the progress of American innovation in agriculture during the 20th century, culminating in the center-pivot irrigation system. This innovation transformed the semi-arid Great Plains into a region capable of sustaining a thriving agricultural industry. Before this innovation, irrigation methods were labor-intensive, requiring workers to move pipes for seedbed preparation, cultivation, and harvest. Farmers accessed the Ogallala Aquifer via wells and pumps but lacked a dependable system to use it efficiently.
Mr. Vazquez said Frank Zybach, raised on a farm near Columbus, Nebraska, developed inventions from an early age to reduce the hardships of farm labor. While farming in Colorado, he observed another farmer irrigating crops by using a tractor to tow a long pipe fitted with sprinklers across a field and recognized the need for a better system. Zybach’s design placed the pump at the center of the field next to a well, with irrigation pipes supported by trusses mounted on wheeled towers that could circuit the field, leaving a distinctive circle pattern. Sprinkler nozzles spray water at set intervals, with smaller nozzles closest to the pivot and the largest at the end of the line. Each installation could cover 133 acres of a 160-acre field without requiring disassembly at planting, tilling, or harvest. By 1952, Zybach received a patent for his invention. Returning to Nebraska, he partnered with fellow Columbus resident A.H. Trowbridge to perfect the design, and they eventually sold the technology to Omaha-based Valmont Industries, now the oldest center pivot manufacturer. In 1976, Scientific American called the system perhaps the most significant mechanical innovation in agriculture since the replacement of draught animals by the tractor.
Mr. Vasquez presented the two reverse designs, noting that the required inscriptions include “United States of America” and “Nebraska.” He said reverse #2 renders a stylized perspective of the center-pivot system sweeping across the landscape as it waters rows of soybean plants, with Nebraska’s key crops of soybeans and corn framing the scene; this alternative is the sole preference of the governor’s office.
Mr. McCrery agreed with the governor’s preference, observing that the irrigation system is shown operating in reverse #2 but not in reverse #1. Mr. Cook concurred, noting that reverse #1 features only soybeans while reverse #2 features both soybeans and corn. Ms. Patenaude asked about the object visible in the upper right corner of reverse # 2, which she said appears to be a gun; Mr. Vasquez confirmed it is a gun-style nozzle used on the system to reach the farthest areas of the field.
Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission recommended approval of reverse #2.
North Dakota. Mr. Vasquez presented the North Dakota coin, for which the identified innovation is unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). He said North Dakota has pioneered UAS development through federal partnerships, educational leadership, and groundbreaking infrastructure. The Northern Plains UAS Test Site was the first of seven sites established to collaborate with government and industry partners to develop systems, rules, and procedures to safely integrate unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System. In May 2014, it became the first test site to conduct an official research flight, marking a milestone in UAS development. The University of North Dakota was the first university in the nation to offer an undergraduate degree in UAS and is home to the Center of Excellence for UAS Research, Education, and Training.
Mr. Vasquez said North Dakota’s most significant breakthrough is “Vantis,” the nation's first statewide UAS network, which allows unmanned aircraft to fly safely beyond visual lines of sight across the entire state. Functioning like an interstate highway system for drones, Vantis operates as a public asset supported by physical infrastructure including radar systems, communication networks, and a mission and network operations center. By creating a replicable model for safe, scalable drone operations, the state has advanced the development of routine drone operations for agricultural monitoring, commercial delivery, transportation, emergency response, and infrastructure management, earning the state recognition as the “Silicon Valley of Drones.”
Mr. Vasquez presented three reverse design alternatives, noting that the required inscriptions are “United States of America” and “North Dakota,” and that all three designs carry the additional inscription “Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” Reverse #3A, the primary preference of the governor’s office, depicts a hybrid fixed-wing drone flying above the United States, representing how unmanned aircraft technology established in North Dakota has set a precedent for the nation; curving parallel lines evoke the complex system that keeps drones in flight. Reverse #5, the secondary preference of the governor’s office, presents a quadcopter drone viewed from below with a navigation radar tower rising in the background, reflecting the state’s infrastructure supporting statewide drone operations. Reverse #6, the tertiary preference of the governor’s office, features a hybrid fixed-wing drone flying above a graphic rendering of rural North Dakota, demonstrating how the technology connects the state and brings resources to its communities.
Mr. Cook said he is inclined to support the governor’s preference, calling the design impressive. Ms. Patenaude asked about the map depicted in reverse #3A; Mr. Vasquez said it shows the northeastern United States, with the Great Lakes visible, as well as Labrador and Greenland. Mr. McCrery said he agrees with the governor’s selection.
Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission recommended approval of reverse #3A for the North Dakota coin.
South Dakota. Mr. Vasquez presented the South Dakota coin, for which the identified innovation is the Dupree family’s role in saving the American buffalo. He said Native Americans and early Euro-American visitors to the Midwest reported that the American buffalo, also known as the American bison, traveled in vast herds across the Great Plains, with biologists estimating the population at between 30 and 60 million in the early nineteenth century. Following droughts in the 1840s and 1850s and decades of over-hunting, the population nearly became extinct; an 1880s Smithsonian Institution census counted fewer than 500 buffalo remaining nationwide.
French-Canadian trader and rancher Frederick Dupree and his Miniconjou Lakota wife, Mary Good Elk Woman, recognized the devastating loss that the disappearance of the buffalo would mean for the Lakota people and the Great Plains ecosystem. In 1883, the Dupree family set out to capture buffalo to protect them from further decimation, raising buffalo and cattle on their land on the Cheyenne Indian Agency—now the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation—near Cherry Creek, South Dakota. The herd at that time included nine full-blood buffaloes, five cows and four bulls. The Duprees and their nine children dedicated themselves to preserving the herd, and by 1902, the herd had grown to 85 buffalo and was sold to rancher Scotty Philip and his Lakota wife, Sarah Larabee, under whose stewardship the herd continued to grow, forming the foundation of the Custer State Park herd. That herd has since contributed buffalo to federal wildlife refuges, national parks, and tribal and private herds. The National Park Service recognizes the Dupree herd as one of the five foundational buffalo herds in the United States.
Mr. Vasquez then presented the design alternatives, noting that the required inscriptions include “United States of America” and “South Dakota.” Several designs also have the additional inscriptions “Heȟáka Wašté Wiŋ”—Mary Good Elk Woman’s Lakota name—and “Frederick Dupree.” He said reverse #4 is the sole preference of both the governor and the Dupree family. The design showcases Mary Good Elk Woman comforting a buffalo calf as she and Frederick Dupree look toward the horizon, with a field of buffalo grazing behind them conveying the impact of their early conservation efforts. Bear Butte, sacred to the Lakota people, rises in the background, anchoring the family’s legacy in South Dakota’s natural and cultural history. Mr. Vasquez noted that minor tweaks might be made to ensure accurate depiction of the Duprees, the landscape, and the buffalo calf. He also noted that the governor’s office requested the Commission’s advice on whether the animal should be referred to as an “American bison” or “American buffalo,” as both options are under consideration.
Chairman Cook said he concurs with the governor’s preference, calling it very fine. Ms. Harris agreed, and she offered a motion to recommend approval of reverse #4; upon second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission adopted this action.
Following the vote, Mr. McCrery said he does not feel qualified to offer counsel on the question of the terms buffalo versus bison, but he said both are noble names for a very noble animal. He asked what the uncertainty was; Mr. Vasquez said that the liaisons are seeking guidance on what would be most appropriate, and that the question would also be put to the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.
B. U.S. Mint
2. CFA 17/SEP/26-3, 2027 Comic Art Coin and Medal Program. Designs for obverse and reverse: Aquaman, Batgirl, and the Flash. Final. Secretary Luebke introduced the final design submission for the 2027 Comic Art Coin and Medal Program, which includes designs for three coins and medals featuring the comic book characters Aquaman, Batgirl, and the Flash, as part of a series celebrating the art form of American comics. He noted that the previous series, featuring Supergirl, Robin, and the Green Lantern, had been reviewed by the Commission in September 2025, and that a total of nine issues is planned for the series. He said that, as authorized by Congress, the product line includes a $50 gold coin (.5 ounces), a silver medal in two sizes (2.5 ounces and 1 ounce), and a clad metal coin with a 1.2” diameter. The gold coin is required to include standard coinage inscriptions, including the $50 denomination, although it would be a non-circulating commemorative coin sold to the public. Related medals would also be for sale, with designs similar to the coin but carrying fewer inscriptions. He asked Roger Vasquez, Acting Chief, Office of Design Management at the United States Mint, to present the three coins.
Mr. Vasquez said the gold coin would include the full complement of required coinage inscriptions; the 2.5-ounce silver medal, approximately 2” in diameter, would carry the date 2027; and the 1-ounce silver medal and the clad medal, each approximately the size of a half dollar, would carry the inscription “Liberty” but not the date.
Aquaman. Mr. Vasquez said Aquaman, also known as Arthur Curry, is the son of a lighthouse keeper and the Queen of Atlantis, and is a founding member of the Justice League of America who commands the undersea realm of Atlantis. He said that Aquaman’s telepathic abilities make him one of the most powerful minds on the planet, and that despite often being underestimated, he possesses great strength and fighting prowess.
Mr. Vasquez presented the proposed design alternatives. He said obverse #1 is the secondary preference of Warner Bros. Discovery, the liaison organization with whom the Mint collaborated on the program; it depicts Aquaman standing at the ready to protect Atlantis and the surface world, with the ocean dynamically arcing around and above him as a symbol of the chaos he must keep at bay. The first choice of Warner Bros. Discovery, obverse #3, shows Aquaman with his trident in hand, leaping confidently out of a mass of waves.
Mr. McCrery asked about the preferences indicated for the reverse designs. Mr. Vasquez confirmed that #1 is the preferred reverse alternative, and he clarified that the two versions shown—one with the inscriptions required for the gold coin, including “E Pluribus Unum,” the $50 denomination, weight and fineness, and “United States of America,” and one with the inscriptions “Bold and Noble” and “Aquaman”—represent the coin and medal versions respectively, with the same principal design elements across all coin types.
Mr. McCrery observed that the preferred obverse design for the gold coin does not include the inscription “Aquaman.” Mr. Vasquez confirmed this, noting that the required inscriptions on the gold coin leave no room for the character’s name, and that this approach is consistent with the other gold coins in the series; instead, the Mint’s packaging and written materials would prominently feature the character’s name and symbolism. Mr. McCrery asked whether “Aquaman” could nonetheless be added to the gold coin obverse. Mr. Vasquez responded that doing so would depart from the approach taken with the other gold coins in the series.
Mr. Cook observed that one of the alternatives depicts Aquaman in what appears to be casual attire resembling torn jeans, while another shows the character in his recognizable costume. Mr. Vasquez said that the obverse typically shows the figure more fully, while the reverse depicts a scene illustrating the character’s backstory—and that the preferred reverse design shows Aquaman as a youth, prior to learning of his origins. Ms. Patenaude observed that the faces on the obverse and reverse do not match; Mr. Vasquez confirmed that they are intended to represent the same person.
Mr. Cook offered a motion to recommend approval of the primary preferences of Warner Bros. Discovery—obverse #3 and reverse #1; upon second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission adopted this action.
Batgirl. Mr. Vasquez said Batgirl, also known as Barbara Gordon, is the daughter of Police Commissioner Jim Gordon and a founding member of the superhero team “Birds of Prey.” She is an expert martial artist and genius-level hacker who exists between two worlds—her life as Commissioner Gordon’s dutiful daughter and her clandestine role as an associate of Batman.
Mr. Vasquez said obverse #1, the first preference of Warner Bros. Discovery, depicts Batgirl confidently leaping into action. Obverse #3, the second preference, shows Batgirl in mid-swing on her rope. For the reverse, alternative #2 is the preferred design of Warner Bros. Discovery, depicting Batgirl in her library as bats fly through an open window, representing her existence between two worlds; a bookshelf features a model of the Liberty Bell representing freedom, justice, and the American way. He said Warner Bros. Discovery did not express a secondary preference for the reverse.
Ms. Harris asked whether, in the interest of series consistency, it would be preferable to show each character’s secret identity on the reverse of every coin, noted that this is consistent with the preferred reverse #2, which shows the character in her domestic setting. Mr. McCrery commented that the preferred designs are of strong artistic quality, and he agreed that Ms. Harris raises an interesting point about consistency. Mr. Vasquez noted that some coins in the series have kept the hero in costume on the reverse, citing the previously reviewed Supergirl as an example.
Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission recommended approval of obverse #1 and reverse #2.
D. Government of the District of Columbia
1. CFA 17/SEP/26-5, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium site. 2400 East Capitol Street, SE. Master plan. Information presentation. Secretary Luebke introduced the information presentation of the master plan for the redevelopment of the Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Memorial Stadium site and adjacent parkland, which includes the construction of a replacement stadium scheduled for completion in 2030. He noted that the Commission had previously reviewed and approved the concept design for the stadium at its July 2026 meeting and had requested a presentation of the master plan to inform its review of the two parking garages, which would follow this presentation.
Secretary Luebke said Congress enacted the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act in 2025, which transferred administrative jurisdiction of the RFK campus to the D.C. Government for redevelopment. As part of the new stadium project, the D.C. Office of Planning completed a draft master plan to guide development of the lands surrounding the stadium. The stated vision is to create a vibrant, inclusive, and resilient riverfront district that connects communities, expands economic opportunity, and celebrates the cultural and recreational life of Washington, D.C. In addition to the stadium, the proposed 180-acre mixed-use development site would include retail, office, up to 6,500 new housing units, a new transportation network, two parking garages for 6,000 vehicles total, and it would allocate 30 percent of the land for parks and open space. He said the development framework incorporates design guidelines addressing site character, use and programming, urban design and built form, public realm and streetscape, and mobility and connectivity. A required 200’-wide riparian buffer would protect the riverfront, and the existing riverfront recreational fields would need to be incorporated into any redevelopment.
Secretary Luebke described the six proposed districts: the Stadium District, an entertainment zone of approximately 30 acres; the Plaza District, a transit-oriented entertainment and mixed-use zone; the Riverfront District, 19.4 acres anchored by housing, retail, and restaurants; Kingman Commons, a residential and recreational zone of 23 acres with a new sportsplex and outdoor space; the Recreation District, a recreational hub of 32.4 acres anchored by athletic fields and community open space; and Anacostia Commons, a riparian zone of 30 acres containing shared-use paths. He asked Brian Hanlon, project executive of the RFK Campus Development Program at the D.C. Executive Office of the Mayor, to introduce the presentation.
Mr. Hanlon thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present the master plan and the two parking garages. He said the RFK campus is the convergence of many dimensions that animate Washington, D.C.—simultaneously civic and natural, historic and forward-looking—and characterized it as a gateway to the city, a 365-day community asset, and a place to celebrate the District’s identity. He introduced the members of the presenting team: Heba ElGawish, associate director of neighborhood planning at the D.C. Office of Planning; Andy Van Horn, director of real estate for the Washington Commanders football team; and Maurice Walters, president and founder of Maurice Walters Architects.
Mr. Hanlon said that since the July 2026 review of the new stadium, the District has continued its planning efforts. At the end of June, the District released a draft master plan for public comment; the comment period, which ran from June 30th through August 14th, generated over 2,200 comments from 1,100 survey participants. The District plans to submit the final proposed master plan to the D.C. Council for approval in the fall. He noted that the two proposed parking garages, located to the north and south of the stadium, are critical to achieving efficient circulation for vehicles accessing stadium events and would be integrated into the mixed-use fabric of the overall development plan. Beyond a functional role, the garages would incorporate phased accommodations for electric vehicles, solar installations, and intuitive wayfinding features, and would offer sweeping views of the U.S. Capitol, the Anacostia River, and the stadium.
Ms. ElGawish said the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of the RFK site from the federal government to the District of Columbia expands the eligible uses for the property to include commercial and residential development, public parks, and cultural amenities, while retaining the stadium, parking garages, and recreation facilities as approved existing uses. She said the new stadium’s construction timeline requires design review of the public buildings to proceed in parallel with the broader master planning for private development.
Ms. ElGawish said the master plan establishes the city’s long-term vision for transforming the 180-acre campus into a series of unique but connected neighborhoods along the Anacostia River. The document lays out the desired mix of uses—parks and open spaces, housing, retail, recreation, and other amenities—that will inform future development proposals and design. She said a key goal is to align the campus layout with the stadium and its supporting development, ensuring that the entire area complements the stadium’s design. The plan introduces a new street network designed to open access to the Anacostia River and strengthen connections with nearby neighborhoods; recommends zoning to match the vision for the area; and establishes urban design expectations for building form, massing, materials, parks, and public spaces. She noted that the planning process has included extensive public engagement throughout 2025 and 2026, including community meetings, stakeholder forums, site walks, webinars, and briefings to advisory neighborhood commissions and community-based organizations. Feedback related to the built form and character emphasized the importance of high-density development to support D.C.’s housing production goals; transitions in building heights near existing lower-scale neighborhoods; the use of complementary building materials; the reduction of the visual impact of the two parking garages; and the promotion of walkability and access to the riverfront.
Ms. ElGawish said the plan document is organized into three chapters: an introductory chapter with an executive summary, historical context, a neighborhood needs assessment, and a summary of the engagement process; a development framework chapter establishing site layout and characteristics including building uses, parks and open spaces, and mobility networks; and a design guidelines chapter providing guidance on streetscape design, building form, and placemaking elements that reflect the site’s geographic and historic significance. She said the redeveloped campus would create 5,000 to 6,500 housing units, 30 percent of which would be affordable; preserve 30 percent of the site as parks and open space in addition to the existing 30-acre riparian zone; and support the city’s economic prosperity through new tax revenue and thousands of new jobs. Investments in multimodal transportation are also underway.
Ms. ElGawish said three of the planned districts exist on the campus today: the Stadium District, the Recreation District where the ball fields are located, and Anacostia Commons, which is the riparian zone. Three new mixed-use districts would be added: the Plaza District to the west, the Riverfront District to the south, and Kingman Commons to the north. Regarding the site layout, she said the planning effort considers several existing site constraints: the location of the stadium, which would remain along the monumental axis; the existing ball fields to the northeast of the stadium, which the community expressed a strong desire to preserve and expand; a series of existing roadways serving regional traffic, including Independence Avenue to the south, C Street to the north, 22nd Street to the west, and Benning Road at the northern edge; and two pieces of critical infrastructure—a large new sewer line running diagonally from northwest to southeast between Constitution Avenue and Independence Avenue, and the Metrorail tunnel and viaduct.
Ms. ElGawish then provided a summary of each district. The Stadium District, encompassing 29.3 acres, would function as an entertainment destination anchored by the new stadium, with building heights up to 110’ and an allowance for the stadium itself up to 130’. The district would include a minimum of 30 percent parks and open space, or 8.8 acres. The public realm would serve both day-to-day enjoyment of the stadium grounds and large event-day gatherings.
Mr. McCrery asked whether a second building shown on the map, south of the stadium, could go up to 110’; Ms. ElGawish confirmed this, identifying it as the Commanders team office.
Ms. Patenaude asked how the 180-acre campus area relates to the 29.3-acre Stadium District acreage; Ms. ElGawish clarified that 29.3 acres is the acreage of the Stadium District only, and that the full 180 acres represents the entire transfer of jurisdiction boundary for the RFK site. Ms. Patenaude asked whether the plan is focused only on the 29 acres; Ms. ElGawish clarified that the 180 acres are divided into six districts, which together make up the full 180 acres.
Ms. ElGawish continued with the Plaza District, which is envisioned as a transit-oriented mixed-use area of approximately 18.7 acres with a mix of residential, office, hotel, retail, and entertainment uses, building heights up to 110’ with transitions to lower heights along the western edge adjacent to the existing low-rise residential area, and a minimum of 10 percent parks and open space, or approximately 1.8 acres.
Mr. McCrery asked about the transition in building heights between the 110’ maximum and the 20’- to 30’-tall existing neighborhood buildings. Ms. ElGawish said the intent is not to match the height of existing rowhouses, but to set complementary heights, which the master plan identifies as between 50’ and 75’ in the transition area. She noted that buildings fronting 19th Street would be located in the transition area, and that their designs might include height variations even beyond the 19th Street edge. Mr. McCrery commented that if 110’-tall buildings are permitted, buildings will be built to 110’, and he asked how the transition area would be enforced. Ms. ElGawish said enforcement could occur through zoning, which still needs to be developed and enacted. Mr. McCrery noted the use of the word “could,” and Ms. ElGawish confirmed that the master plan establishes the transition areas and that they will be translated into the zoning.
Ms. ElGawish described the Riverfront District as a waterfront community of 19.4 acres with residences, hotels, and retail, with building heights up to 130’ and massing and form variations to promote a dynamic skyline and preserve views to the stadium and riverfront. The district includes a minimum of 15 percent parks and open space, or nearly 3 acres. A main pedestrian-oriented thoroughfare, River Street, SE, would create a physical and visual connection diagonally between the stadium and the river and would serve as a central retail core for the neighborhood. The Riverfront District also includes one of the two proposed parking garages.
Mr. McCrery asked whether the parking garage’s height would sit below the 130’ maximum height established for this district; Ms. ElGawish said she believes this to be the case. Mr. McCrery commented positively on the variety of building heights depicted in one of aerial renderings, saying that this vision is attractive and appropriate for the riverine context. However, he expressed concern that this vision and the establishment of a potential 130’ maximum building height throughout the Riverfront District would contradict each other, since the entire district could in theory be built to 130’. He cited the examples of the Navy Yard and Capitol Riverfront redevelopments in Southeast, noting that while he supports these other development, he finds the results—uniform, boxy buildings all at the same height, all holding to the property line and with no variability in profiles—visually monotonous and canyon-like. He asked whether the D.C. Government is considering physical plans as part of the zoning, with three-dimensional massing models to which developers would need to adhere in order to actually achieve the modulation shown in the renderings, rather than simply promulgating zoning text and map amendments with a numerical height limit. Ms. ElGawish said the Office of Planning is very much aligned with his comments, noting that the development framework sets the maximum building heights, and that the design guidelines, which she would address later, would set design standards for building form and massing to create a dynamic skyline and a sense of variation. Mr. McCrery observed that the two must work together and that you cannot have one without the other.
Ms. ElGawish then presented Kingman Commons, a mixed-use development district that would be more residential in character with some community-serving retail and that would expand on existing recreational amenities with a new sportsplex and park spaces. Building heights in Kingman Commons could go up to 110’, with transitions down along Oklahoma Avenue toward the existing Kingman Park Historic District, which is primarily rowhouses. The master plan requires a minimum of 15 percent parks and open space, or 3.5 acres. The district also includes parking garage G2, which is being presented today for the Commission’s review. She noted that the transition area along Oklahoma Avenue is identified in the site plan through different building typologies showing how the transition could be achieved.
Ms. ElGawish then addressed Anacostia Commons and the Recreation District, noting that together they would provide approximately 62 acres of passive and active parkland. The Recreation District would primarily include athletic fields with community amenities, and Anacostia Commons would be preserved as a natural riparian zone with trails and river-based activities. She also noted several other sites within the master plan boundary, most notably the D.C. Armory, which was recently approved for transfer of administrative jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. The Armory is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and the master plan contemplates its adaptive reuse for civic, recreational, or commercial use. She said the plan also includes a number of parcels to the north where the D.C. Fire and EMS Department is planning a new fire station at the intersection of 21st, 22nd, and C Streets, NE. A portion of the existing D.C. Water treatment facility to the south is also contemplated for repurposing as park space. She indicated the proposed public buildings on a site map, including the stadium, parking garages, and sportsplex, noting that they are expected to be constructed prior to the private development, and that their design will ultimately inform the rest of the built environment.
Ms. ElGawish said the master plan calls for a new multimodal street network to stitch the campus back into the city fabric and to better integrate it with the surrounding neighborhoods of Kingman Park, Capitol Hill, and the future Hill East development—as well communities east of the river, including River Terrace, Mayfair, and Fort Dupont. Regarding implementation, she noted that the development framework chapter calls for adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan’s future land use maps and codifying the proposed building uses and densities in the D.C. zoning code to permit residential and commercial development, including the establishment of the transition areas along 19th Street and Oklahoma Avenue in the Plaza District and Kingman Commons.
Mr. McCrery reiterated his concern that zoning text and map amendments alone would be insufficient to achieve the desired look and feel of the redevelopment area. He advised that without a three-dimensional physical plan with form-based massing requirements—similar to a planned unit development approach—developers would maximize square footage, fill out zoning envelopes entirely, and produce canyon-like streets with abrupt edges. He described a scenario in which someone approaching the district from the west along East Capitol Street would encounter a sheer wall of buildings extending all the way to the river, and he urged the D.C. Government to go beyond two-dimensional zoning amendments and produce a physical master plan and three-dimensional framework that developers would be required to follow in order to achieve the character shown in the renderings; Ms. ElGawish acknowledged the comment. Mr. McCrery asked directly whether the Office of Planning is able and willing to do that, and Ms. ElGawish indicated that it would. He asked whether the office had done this kind of work before, and she acknowledged that the office did not currently have form-based provisions as part of its zoning code, but she said her team could work with the development review process to be explicit about form and massing. Mr. McCrery noted that many other jurisdictions have adopted such approaches and achieved results that are valued both by communities and in terms of property values.
Ms. ElGawish continued with the design guidelines chapter. She said that while the development framework for each district defines its characteristic mix of uses and densities, the design guidelines recommend approaches to building form, streetscape elements, and public space programming in order to create a sense of place and a cohesive experience aligned with the District’s civic legacy. The guidelines are intended to create inclusive and welcoming spaces, architecture that is bold yet context-sensitive, and neighborhoods with unique features that are still connected to each other and to surrounding communities. Regarding the height and massing transitions, she said the design guidelines address several locations where building heights, orientation, and form must be sensitive to the surrounding context. She described an illustration showing a transition approach along Oklahoma Avenue adjacent to existing residential properties, as well as an illustration showing a design approach in the Riverfront District that would frame views to the stadium and the river, maximize light and air, and create a dynamic skyline. The guidelines specify that buildings at the lower end of the new River Street should include upper-story terraces at the corners to open up the view corridor and create a sense of an expanded public realm.
Ms. ElGawish said the building architecture is generally expected to follow a gradient, from a more traditional expression and materiality for areas nearer to the Capitol Hill and Kingman Park neighborhoods to greater architectural flexibility for development closer to the river. The architecture is also expected to complement the stadium without overpowering it. She cited as examples of the design strategy the Anthology apartment building on H Street, NE, which is characterized by a base, middle, and top, with materials transitioning from traditional brick to metal panel; and a more contemporary example from Union Market, which uses glazing with masonry as an accent material, designed to maximize access to light and air.
Ms. ElGawish said the design guidelines establish several view corridors that reinforce the continuity of the L’Enfant Plan’s urban form, strengthen visual and physical connections to the river, and frame important landmarks and civic buildings that would include the new stadium, the Capitol, and the Washington Monument. More specifically, the guidelines designate viewsheds to be preserved along Constitution Avenue; under the Metrorail viaduct between the Kingman Park neighborhood and the Recreation District; and along the new River Street, which would frame views west to the stadium and east to the river.
Ms. ElGawish concluded the presentation by noting that the master plan includes additional guidance for parks and open space design and programming, as well as placemaking elements such as public art, wayfinding, and lighting. She said the city is in the process of consolidating approximately 3,000 comments received during the public comment period and is aiming to submit the plan to the D.C. Council by the end of the month.
Mr. McCrery asked whether the master plan anticipates an additional Metrorail station. Ms. ElGawish said it does not currently, noting that according to WMATA’s findings, the existing Stadium–Armory Metro station would need expansion and improvements to handle larger crowds, but that an additional station is not necessary, though it is also not precluded. Mr. McCrery expressed appreciation that the plan would not preclude an additional station, noting that constructing an above-ground station along the existing viaduct could be a potential cost advantage compared to underground construction. He also suggested the possibility of direct rail or platform access to parking garage G2, and he encouraged the D.C. Government to consider including such a station in the master plan, even if WMATA has not yet endorsed one, noting that ambitious master plans can recommend aspirational goals. Ms. ElGawish explained that the current plan follows WMATA’s direction based on their feasibility analysis, which found that expanding the existing station would be more feasible than creating an infill station. Mr. McCrery advised that master plans can suggest goals beyond what is currently favored or feasible.
Chairman Cook and Mr. McCrery then briefly discussed the geographic context of the site, identifying nearby landmarks, including Congressional Cemetery and the Hill East development area. Mr. McCrery asked about the new streets and whether they would follow the District’s long-established street section widths, or whether they would create canyon-like conditions. He noted that East Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue are approximately 160’ wide, and he asked whether the new street network would include comparable variability or be uniformly narrow. Ms. ElGawish confirmed there would be variability, noting that the existing roadways are quite wide, and that a new roadway to be established at Kingman Commons would create more generous conditions. She said the internal street network would range from 90’ wide down to 75’ or 65’, with the new River Street at 100’ wide. Mr. McCrery asked if the plan would incorporate sidewalk widths, tree canopy, and street section designs. Ms. ElGawish confirmed that the master plan includes guidance on streetscape design, including minimum dimensions for the sidewalks and corresponding amenity zones, which would incorporate plantings, lighting, signage, and trees, as well as a building tenant zone, with the intent of differentiating activities along the streetscape and ensuring generous widths.
Mr. McCrery asked if the new streets would be tree-lined; Ms. ElGawish confirmed they would. Mr. McCrery asked whether the master plan proposes to meaningfully contribute to the D.C. Government’s goal of achieving 40 percent tree canopy coverage; he suggested that the canopy of the required riparian zone not be counted toward that goal, and that the calculation should address the street sections and parks within the developable area. Ms. ElGawish acknowledged that the master plan would contribute to the canopy goal but that the specific percentage calculation had not yet been completed. Mr. McCrery said that since the District had a stated goal of 40 percent, the redevelopment area should at least meet that threshold, as anything less would pull down the citywide average.
Mr. McCrery asked about the current status of the D.C. Armory. Ms. ElGawish said the D.C. Government is following conversations among various government agencies and reviewing the legislation enabling the transfer of jurisdiction to determine allowable uses, with a view toward adaptive reuse and maintaining some form of civic use, given the building’s eligibility for historic designation. Mr. Hanlon added that there is a significant amount of ancillary office space associated with the Armory that is being proposed to move elsewhere, and that planning for the Armory was ongoing, with an anticipated acceleration of the Hill East development as a result. Mr. McCrery asked whether plans for the Armory would be subject to a public process similar to this review; Secretary Luebke and Mr. Hanlon confirmed that any new public buildings would come under the standard CFA design review process for government buildings.
The discussion concluded without a formal action.
D. Government of the District of Columbia
2. CFA 17/SEP/26-6, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium site, 2400 East Capitol Street, SE. New parking garage (G1). Concept. Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design submissions for the two parking garages, known respectively as G1 and G2, associated with the new stadium project. He said G1 would be an eight-level, 2,400-space parking structure located to the southeast of the stadium site, sitting between the stadium and future development parcels. According to the applicant, it would be oriented to maintain waterfront access, preserve views, and avoid the concentration of parking and traffic in a single area. It is intended to support event operations while reinforcing the city’s broader vision for future mixed-use riverfront development. Located on a parcel surrounded on three sides by future mixed-use development, the structure would have architectural facades on all four sides to reinforce the garage’s role as an integral part of the campus. He said two design options are being evaluated for G1, both intended to complement the stadium, the future development, and the surrounding public realm: one in a more contemporary architectural language, and the other intended to blend more with the mixed-use development that would surround the site. Both options include pedestrian connectivity to the stadium, green roofs, bioretention features, and solar panels. He asked Matt Bell, principal at Perkins Eastman DC, to begin the presentation.
Mr. Bell said he would provide context for the garages in terms of their urban design relationship to the master plan and the process that led to their proposed locations. He identified two major infrastructure constraints on the overall site: the Metrorail tunnel and aboveground viaduct, which is accompanied by a concrete wall of considerable length that blocks views from the adjacent neighborhood to the waterfront; and a large new D.C. Water sewer line running diagonally southeast toward an existing swirl concentrator facility near the river. He also noted three existing pedestrian underpasses at the Stadium District—remnants of the original RFK design connecting surface parking areas under Independence and C Streets—that have figured prominently in the garage location decisions. He said that C Street and Independence Avenue would remain open to vehicles during games, as they are necessary regional arteries, making the underpasses important for pedestrian access into the Stadium District.
Mr. Bell said the decision to place parking in structured garages rather than surface lots—unusual for NFL stadiums—would allow the project to meet the 30 percent open space requirement while enabling private mixed-use development in new walkable neighborhoods. He described the envisioned condition on opening day of the stadium in 2030, with G1 located to the south near an underpass connecting to the Stadium District, and G2 to the north. He summarized two key design principles that emerged from the community outreach process: the desire to weave the community back together through a new street network that would integrate the site with the waterfront and allow north–south movement through the development area, and the community's strong preference that parking not be concentrated in one location.
Mr. Bell described several alternatives that were considered for the siting of G1. Locating the garage adjacent to the D.C. Water facility was rejected due to its adverse impact on the adjacent Hill East development. Splitting the parking across two smaller structures would have created operational and access problems and would have sited parking too close to the Hill East neighborhood. The team ultimately pursued an approach that would embed the garage within the Riverfront District as part of the urban fabric, rather than treating it as a standalone object.
Mr. Bell said early concepts for G2 would have placed a garage on the Kingman Park side of the Metrorail viaduct; these were rejected because they would have disrupted the landscape and the important visual connection through the viaduct to the waterfront. Spanning the train tracks and locating the garage near C Street was explored but rejected for two reasons: it would have obstructed the service vehicle underpass needed for trucks accessing the stadium, and an electrical substation in that location presented major construction obstacles. Pushing the parking deck structure toward Benning Road was also considered but ultimately dismissed, as proximity to the stadium was deemed essential for operational efficiency, and the sportsplex location on Benning Road was seen as giving that facility greater visibility and identity.
Mr. Bell said the solution to keeping event traffic out of surrounding neighborhoods is to limit stadium access to streets that do not route through residential areas. A new north–south street, designated as 22nd Street, would be created to carry event traffic to and from G2 and to the greater stadium campus. An adjacent frontage street with a central planted area would be added to allow neighborhood residents to circulate without mixing with event traffic; this new street would also create a new cross-neighborhood connection from Hill East to Benning Road.
Mr. Bell cited three reasons why parking at the Festival Plaza was not pursued: this area would be a key location for views to the U.S. Capitol and its relationship to the Armory and adjacent neighborhoods; envisioned game-day street closures in the area would conflict with parking access routes; and the D.C. Water sewer line running through the site limits the available footprint for an efficient garage. He concluded that constructing a mixed-use building to the north of Festival Plaza would better serve the surrounding community.
Mr. McCrery asked about the potential splitting of East Capitol Street in the illustrated plan, specifically whether the north and south cartways would both accommodate vehicular access during events. Mr. Bell confirmed that the north cartway would carry primary traffic, with the south one used only for accessing the Armory during events. Mr. McCrery asked about routing for drivers heading eastbound on East Capitol Street toward I-295 or Route 50; Mr. Bell said drivers would be able to go around via Independence and C Streets, which are proposed to be converted from one-way to two-way. Mr. McCrery observed that the proposal appears to close the southern cartway of East Capitol Street to traffic; Mr. Bell confirmed it is envisioned as a special event street, not a public street, with the principal two-way street to the north.
Mr. McCrery asked for more information about the decision to close the southern cartway of East Capitol Street. Mr. Bell said the project team determined that only one alignment would be needed and that the spatial idea of trees and preserved views was the important consideration; he added that that retaining the southern cartway would cut the Armory off from the plaza. Mr. McCrery strongly recommended retaining the southern cartway as a public street, characterizing the Festival Plaza space as analogous to Washington's great civic circles and parks—shaped like a Roman circus and very much part of the fabric of the city, comparable to Lincoln Square and Dupont Circle. He noted that the prevailing built form of Washington allows drivers to travel the entire perimeter of such spaces, and that eliminating this circulation pattern would be contrary to that tradition. He also questioned the awkward traffic island and road configuration at the western side of the plaza. Mr. Bell responded that the goal has been to reduce the width of the existing intersections to make them more walkable, as the large intersections in that area are inhospitable to pedestrians.
Mr. McCrery agreed with the goal of improving walkability, but he suggested narrowing the width of the streets rather than eliminating them; this would entail reducing the existing four-lane plus two-lane service road configuration down to perhaps two lanes in each direction, which he said from his own experience of living in the neighborhood is usually all that is ever needed for traffic flow, even on a game day. He advised that narrowing the streets would increase green space, improve connectivity between mixed uses and parks, and preserve the traditional traffic pattern. Mr. Bell noted that throughout the planning effort, the team had worked to narrow Independence and C Streets for improved walkability. Mr. Bell noted that event traffic would arrive primarily from the south via I-695 and Barney Circle, from the north via Benning Road, and from east across the Whitney Young Bridge.
Mr. McCrery asked whether 19th Street would be one-way or two-way; Mr. Bell confirmed it would be one-way northbound. Mr. McCrery asked whether 19th Street could be made two-way, noting that eastbound drivers on East Capitol Street would need to turn somewhere or risk becoming caught in parking lot traffic. He also commented that 19th Street might function better as a two-way street under normal conditions, noting the street currently moves too fast. He said the proposed game-day closure of 19th Street also strengthens his recommendation that the southern segment of East Capitol Street remain open and functional, which would also restore the urban symmetry of the site plan and preserve the ability to circulate around the new civic space. Mr. McCrery asked whether any additional underpasses beyond the existing two were being considered; Mr. Bell responded that only the two noted would be retained.
Secretary Luebke said that the presentation would continue with the architectural design of G1, and he asked Maurice Walters, representing the design team of Kimley-Horn, WDG, and his firm, to present the G1 parking garage.
Mr. Walters said G1 would be located just to the south of the stadium, parallel to Independence Avenue, and would be approximately 440’ long and 240’ deep. He said the garage, designed to be embedded into the future mixed-use development and street network, would have nine levels and be accessed off Independence at what is effectively the second level due to the grade change; the remaining two entrances would be at lower levels on the south and east sides.
Mr. Walters presented two design options for G1. He said Option 1 would have all four facades articulated with a base, middle, and top. The overall structure would feature four corner volumes with canted sides for vertical circulation, a crown or canopy at the top, and decorative metal panels in the middle zone. In the future development build-out, the lower level of the garage would be encapsulated within a continuous podium extending to the adjacent mixed-use buildings, reducing the garage’s visible height by at least one story. He said the primary materials would include precast cladding at the corners with dark-brick accents; metal grilles at the base; metal screens with perforated organic patterns inspired by wild rice native to the Anacostia River; and a canopy clad in metal panels at the top. The proposed lighting concept includes recessed linear fixtures on the underside of the canopy and at the base of the corner volumes, as well as pedestrian-level sconce fixtures. Mr. McCrery asked whether the facade panels would be metal or glass; Mr. Walters confirmed that they would be metal.
Mr. Walters said Option 2 presents the facades as a series of pavilions separated by areas enclosed with perforated metal panels. The pavilions would be clad in architectural precast concrete with decorative grilles at the base and decorative cast stone or precast panels in the upper zones. Elevator overrides would be somewhat set back from Independence Avenue, and the green roof and solar panels would be set back more than 40’ and not visible from street level; a canopy feature is not proposed for this option. The proposed material palette includes architectural precast concrete spandrels lining the parking deck slab edges, decorative metal panels between the pavilions, and metal grilles at the base. The proposed lighting concept includes LED strips at the reveals, backlighting of the metal panels, and pedestrian- and vehicular-level lighting at the entrances. He said the spandrels, each approximately 5’ to 6’ tall, represent the floor levels.
Chairman Cook invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Patenaude asked how many parking spaces G1 would contain; Mr. Walters confirmed 2,400 spaces. Ms. Patenaude noted the presentation had referenced both 8,000 and 6,000 total spaces at different points and asked for clarification. Mr. Walters explained that G1 and G2 together total 6,000 spaces—G1 with 2,400 and G2 with 3,600—and that an additional 2,000 surface spaces would bring the total to 8,000. Ms. Patenaude asked how the number of parking spaces was determined relative to the stadium’s capacity of approximately 65,000–70,000. Andy Van Horn of the Washington Commanders responded that the team had been aggressive in reducing parking for the urban stadium. He said the 8,000 spaces, at approximately three to four people per car, would serve approximately 25,000 attendees arriving by car. Metrorail is expected to serve approximately 35,000 riders, which the system can accommodate in one hour for both ingress and egress, while the remaining approximately 5,000 to 6,000 attendees are anticipated to arrive by rideshare, bicycle, or foot.
Mr. McCrery asked how fans’ tailgating activities would be accommodated. Mr. Van Horn said that tailgating had been considered, noting the garages are designed with higher floor-to-floor heights than typical, at approximately 12’, allowing for a variety of uses. As the festival plaza and other outdoor spaces are developed, alternatives including outdoor festival tent tailgating would be provided. Mr. McCrery noted that the surface parking would eventually be replaced by development, and he asked what would happen to tailgating in the long term. Mr. Van Horn acknowledged that parking lot tailgating would diminish over time, to be replaced by more select street and rooftop tailgating, as well as by the bars, restaurants, and festival plaza spaces that will be created.
Mr. McCrery expressed a preference for Option 2, commenting that given the master plan’s commitment to embedding the garage within a development of mixed-use buildings, Option 1 reads as a freestanding architectural statement or an object building, while Option 2, with its pavilion articulation and smaller-scale facade modules, would better contribute to and participate in the larger development fabric. He said that regardless of aesthetics, this contextual fit is the primary reason he considers Option 2 more appropriate. Chairman Cook agreed with Mr. McCrery’s preference.
Mr. McCrery observed that Option 2’s massing subdivision is reminiscent of the National Air and Space Museum—a successful strategy for a long building—and he commended the articulation of the facade into discrete pavilions. He also praised the artistic approach to the spandrels and guardrails. However, he said that while he appreciates the graduation from denser to more open patterns in the metal screens, the sudden shift in scale to a much larger element in the middle of the composition is jarring and should be reconsidered. He asked whether the larger elements would be precast concrete or metal; Mr. Walters confirmed that the larger elements would be metal and the panels at the parking deck slabs would be precast concrete. Mr. McCrery asked if the fine detail of the organic patterns could be achieved in precast; Mr. Walters acknowledged that precast would not achieve the same level of detail as metal. Mr. McCrery asked whether glass had been considered for the spandrel panels; Mr. Walters said it had not, noting the need for a structural element at the edges of the parking decks. Mr. McCrery observed that the same structural condition applies to the precast, and that there is nothing preventing the exploration of other cladding materials. Mr. Walters agreed that the engineering had not yet been finalized and that the structural element could potentially be cast with patterns incorporated into it, or metal cladding could be applied to achieve the desired level of detail. Mr. McCrery suggested that metal panels, which would be capable of carrying finer detail than precast, might be used in a flat honed finish with the organic pattern worked in, while achieving a compatible scale relationship between the larger and smaller panel elements.
Mr. McCrery asked about the lighting strategy for Option 2, specifically whether the light source for the LED strips in the reveals would be visible or concealed. Mr. Walters said the fixtures could be recessed in the returns to conceal the source while achieving the desired glowing effect. Mr. McCrery strongly recommended concealing the light sources, citing the Spy Museum at L’Enfant Plaza as a cautionary example of exposed LED lighting; he advised that only a glow on the surface should be visible, not the fixture itself. He recommended that the team consult with lighting specialists to ensure that there would be no visual “hot spots” and that the illumination would enhance rather than compete with the decorative art of the panels.
Mr. McCrery asked how general illumination of the open parking decks would be handled to avoid the appearance of a grid of visible fixtures, similar to temporary construction lighting. Mr. Walters responded that sconces on the piers and regular D.C. streetlights are proposed at the base level, but that the interior deck illumination has not yet been resolved at this level of design. Mr. McCrery suggested that if the structure uses precast T-sections, lighting could be integrated into the system to produce a soft glow from within, avoiding exposed neon tubes or LED strips visible from the exterior.
Ms. Patenaude expressed a strong preference for Option 1, finding Option 2 busy, and she expressed concern that without knowing the character of the future adjacent development, the busy facades of Option 2 might not relate well. She also raised the issue of the interior parking deck lighting being visible through the open facade of Option 2 at night, noting that the metal screens in Option 1 would provide some mitigation. She also asked whether the parking garage would be available for the future residential and commercial developments adjacent to the site and how that access would be managed on game days. Mr. Van Horn said the garages are intended to primarily serve visitors, tourists, and hospitality guests accessing the entertainment district, while residents and workers in adjacent developments would have their own dedicated parking.
Ms. Patenaude asked what the illuminated metal panels of Option 1 would look like at night, given the open facade. Mr. Walters responded that the metal screens would mitigate light visibility from the interior, producing a dull glow through the screen rather than direct light exposure. Ms. Patenaude reiterated her preference for Option 1, but she deferred to the architects on the Commission for their technical judgment.
Chairman Cook suggested the applicant return with both options further refined. He commented that Option 1 is not particularly characteristic of Washington design, while Option 2 is more so, but he noted that the canted corners on Option 1 could be toned down.
Mr. McCrery said that while he prefers Option 2 for its contextual fit with the master plan, he finds that Option 1 could be similarly improved. He therefore suggested further articulation of the facades of Option 1 with additional subdivision elements to break up its length while retaining its large-scale metal panels, which seem to create the appearance of the building hovering and being ungrounded. He characterized the crown or canopy element as interesting, and he suggested that instead of a lit slot, uplighting be considered to gently illuminate the underside of the crown, taking advantage of the architectural form rather than using a visible strip light. He noted that in Option 1, the issue of varying scales in the decorative panels is not salient, as everything would be at a consistently large scale. He also recommended study of the metal screen at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial as a cautionary example to ensure that the decorative elements retain legibility. He concluded by endorsing Chairman Cook’s suggestion that both options be developed further, as he sees potential in both.
The discussion concluded without a formal action.
D. Government of the District of Columbia
3. CFA 17/SEP/26-7, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium site, 2400 East Capitol Street, SE. New parking garage (G2). Concept. Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design submission for G2, the second parking garage for the stadium development. He described G2 as a seven-level, 3,600-space parking structure that would be located northeast of the stadium site, directly adjacent to an existing Metrorail viaduct. The garage would be positioned east of 22nd Street to avoid traffic impacts on the Kingman Park neighborhood and to connect directly to the planned roadway network; this configuration would allow event traffic to access the campus efficiently from major regional routes while minimizing impacts on residential streets. He noted that the design for G2 emphasizes operational efficiency, multimodal connectivity, and integration with future development, and that its architecture is designed as a series of articulated pavilions that respond on each facade to the different scales of the adjacent residential neighborhood. He asked architect Maurice Walters to present the project.
Mr. Walters said G2 would sit north of the stadium and along the Metrorail viaduct, adjacent to the Kingman Park neighborhood. He said that a Metrorail electrical substation on the site presents a challenge, but that shaping the southern massing of the garage to avoid that infrastructure has yielded a beneficial result: a public plaza on the south end that would be used by pedestrians accessing the garage. He said the garage would have three at-grade vehicular entrances: one from a new service road, one from the new 22nd Street, and one on the north side, through a new plaza. The north plaza entrance is intended to be used primarily on event days, with the ability to be closed on non-event days to allow for other community events. A bicycle storage area would be incorporated at the north facade to activate that frontage.
Mr. Walters then described the massing and articulation strategy for the garage. The massing of the garage’s west side, along 22nd Street, would reach approximately 90’ in height. Vertical circulation towers at the east facade would rise an additional 20’ above the top parking deck. Solar panels would be incorporated above the main entry ramp. On the east side, facing the fields, the massing would rise one story above the top deck level to give the garage additional stature, and would then step back down on the 22nd Street side. He said the design employs finer-grain articulation along 22nd Street, with smaller pavilions separated by recessed areas, and color variation to break down the scale. On the east side, the scale increases slightly and is expressed in a single uniform color. At the south end, where the massing has been sculpted back to create a plaza, a vertical circulation tower containing glass-enclosed elevators and stairs would bring people down into the plaza; its red color is inspired by the Washington Commanders’ team colors, with additional gold detailing on the interior stairs. A corner stair tower at the south end of the 22nd Street facade would rise one level above the roofline to provide a terminating accent at the corner. He said another significant feature of the design is a proposed pedestrian bridge running along the east face at the third level, elevated above the adjacent viaduct; this bridge would connect the north and south plazas and would allow pedestrians to move north and south along the garage with views east over the adjacent fields and toward the river and stadium.
Mr. Walters said the proposed material palette includes architectural precast concrete in cream and light gray, with textured spandrels for additional detail. Metal panels at the recessed areas between the pavilions would feature an abstract pattern of cherry blossoms. The lighting concept features linear LED fixtures silhouetting the three pavilions on the east facade, with concealed sources in the returns of the reveals to create a subtle glow, pedestrian lighting at grade, uplighting at vehicular entrances, and backlighting of the decorative metal panels. The proposed bioretention area beneath the pedestrian bridge is also proposed to be illuminated.
Chairman Cook invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Mr. McCrery asked if the pedestrian bridge would be enclosed; Mr. Walters said it would be open. Ms. Harris said that given the design of G2 as presented, Option 2 for G1 would likely fit better when considering the two garages together as a system.
Ms. Patenaude asked why the Commanders’ colors are incorporated into G2 but not in G1. Mr. Walters said that feature arose from the unique condition of the south plaza in G2, where it seemed appropriate to celebrate the vertical circulation element in a public-facing space. Ms. Patenaude asked whether G2 would be closer to the stadium than G1; Mr. Walters said G2 would actually be farther away, with G1 located directly across from the stadium. He said that incorporating the team colors directly across from the stadium on G1 might have been excessive, whereas in G2 the element would be set back and more appropriately placed. Ms. Patenaude asked why the two garages are designed so differently from one another. Mr. Walters responded that the intent is to give each garage its own character; they have different footprints, massings, and roles in the master plan, and designing them as distinct buildings rather than identical structures would make the overall campus feel as though the buildings had developed over time rather than all at once. Ms. Patenaude asked if G2 would be the larger of the two garages, with 3,600 spaces; Mr. Walters confirmed this. Ms. Patenaude asked about the pedestrian crossing conditions on the street adjacent to G2, noting that fans would need to cross a roadway that vehicles would also be using to access the garage, and she questioned whether this would create significant traffic backups. Mr. Walters said the crossing would need to be signalized and managed by game day traffic coordinators. Ms. Patenaude asked whether consideration had been given to extending the pedestrian bridge across the street to avoid the at-grade conflict; Mr. Walters said this had not been explored.
Mr. McCrery asked about the relationship between C Street and the garage entrance, noting that C Street, appearing to be at grade, actually descends toward the river; he also asked how the C Street bridge connection to the second level of the garage would be achieved. Mr. Walters said that C Street would remain in its existing elevated condition and that the new 22nd Street would rise to meet it, with the grade change naturally providing access to different levels of the garage. Matt Bell, principal at Perkins Eastman DC, clarified that a connection from C Street into the garage would be established from the west at the second level, and that the land falls along the east edge, allowing a lower-level entrance within the same building without the need for a dedicated ramp. Mr. McCrery asked whether the C Street connection would be two-way; Mr. Bell confirmed this.
Mr. McCrery then commented on the overall character of G2, saying that it appears architecturally heavier than Option 2 for G1. Mr. Walters acknowledged that the east facade of G2 is expressed at a larger scale, with less finely articulated spandrels. Mr. McCrery said he would encourage moving the G2 design in the direction of Option 2 for G1, citing its finer articulation. Regarding the glazed stair tower, he said he does not object to its prominence as an architectural feature and its red color; however, he finds that the other more utilitarian stair towers read as heavy and industrial, reminiscent of smokestacks. He suggested incorporating glass to open them up and lighten their appearance, and he recommended lightening the color of the gray concrete to alleviate the heavy visual quality. He also suggested featuring the stair itself more prominently, noting that the switchback shape of the stair could be more visually interesting than solid panels; the stairs within the recessed areas on the east facade could serve as a model for the towers. He also recommended adding a crown or cornice element at the top of the towers, similar to the treatment used in Option 1 for G1.
Mr. McCrery commented positively on the east facade and the pedestrian bridge, confirming with Mr. Walters that internal stairs within each recessed area would connect to the pedestrian bridge and that there would be fenestration associated with those stairs. Mr. McCrery reiterated his suggestion to incorporate a new Metrorail station along the length of the bridge, commenting that some Amtrak stations with short platforms are serviced by a single car. He asked why the bridge is positioned at the third level; Mr. Walters said this elevation is necessary to clear the tracks below.
Mr. McCrery said he does not support outlining the building form with LED strips, commenting that the building’s form would be legible on its own without literal highlighting. He instead recommended lighting the facade from the bridge structure, which could carry the necessary conduit to provide gentle uplighting of the major and minor facade elements so that the light source would remain concealed. He noted that light spilling around corners would also allow people to read and understand the building’s geometry without the outline approach, and he cited the proposed lighting of the bioretention area as a comparable effect he finds successful.
Ms. Patenaude asked where the existing Metrorail station is relative to G2. Mr. Walters said the existing Metro stop is southeast of the garage, with the train line running beneath the stadium site and emerging above grade at a point adjacent to G2’s east facade.
The discussion concluded without a formal action.
E. D.C. Department of General Services
2. CFA 17/SEP/26-9, Bunker Hill Elementary School, 1401 Michigan Avenue, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept. Secretary Luebke introduced the concept submission for renovations and additions to Bunker Hill Elementary School and its associated landscape. He said the school, located in the Michigan Park neighborhood of Northeast D.C., was designed by noted architect Arthur B. Heaton in a simple Colonial Revival style as an extensible school—a common typology from the early- to mid-20th century, used in Washington, D.C. to accommodate sequential additions as school populations increased. The first section of the building was constructed in 1940, with subsequent additions in the 1950s, and a separate two-story classroom wing connected only at the first floor, completed in 1965. The original masonry wings are clad in Flemish bond with rubbed brick detailing at the corners and around windows, with painted white trim. He said the site is steeply sloped at Michigan Avenue, NE, on the north, with a grassy berm rising to meet the elevated school site. The playing fields, play areas, and parking on the south section of the site are relatively level with the surrounding streets. He said the school is considered architecturally significant and was added to the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites in 2012 and the National Register of Historic Places in 2014.
Secretary Luebke said the proposed design would retain the original modified H-shaped building, demolish the 1965 wing, and extend the footprint to the south to accommodate additional classrooms, a gymnasium, a cafeteria, a childhood development center, and a new primary entrance. The landscape improvements include new playgrounds, outdoor classrooms, a learning garden, an artificial turf soccer field, a relocated parking lot, and planting areas. He noted that accessibility from various points on the site, particularly from the north, is challenging; the team has been working to minimize the visual impact of any ramps. He introduced Patrick Moloney, project manager from the D.C. Department of General Services. Mr. Moloney introduced himself and the design-build team of MCN Build and Studios Architecture, and he asked architects Hiroshi Jacobs and B.C. Ahn of Studios Architecture to present the design.
Mr. Jacobs said the subject site is bounded by Michigan Avenue to the north, 14th Street to the west, Taylor Street to the south, and single-family residences to the east. As Michigan Avenue is a four-lane arterial roadway and sited at the base of the site’s berm, pedestrian arrival and vehicle pick-up and drop-off on this frontage is challenging. Currently, these activities occur along 14th Street, at the western side of the site, as it is the most accessible; this is where the new school entrance is proposed.
Mr. Ahn said the existing building features a clear articulation of base, middle, and top, expressed through architectural elements including a water table and modest cornice ornamentation, as well as a circular oeil-de-boeuf window on the short sides of each academic wing. The 1960s building, by contrast, presents mostly blank walls with little character, and its entrance is adjacent to the parking lot curb cut, creating a conflict between pedestrian arrival and vehicular access that the new design seeks to resolve. He said the proposed site strategy prioritizes outdoor space by minimizing the building footprint, establishing a clearly recognizable main arrival point along 14th Street, and keeping the parking lot entrance on the southwest corner of the lot, oriented away from heritage trees along Taylor Street. A small soccer pitch for players under ten years old, identified as both a program requirement and a significant element of the school’s culture, would anchor the south portion of the site. Outdoor play areas are located to the east, sheltered from the activity of 14th Street.
Mr. Ahn said the massing approach maintains the bilateral symmetry of the historic building, with the new addition recessed at its sides to create a clearly articulated entry experience, to break down the perceived scale of the building, and to visually separate the new addition from the existing building. He said the gymnasium, cafeteria, and other public-facing programs would be located in the east wing of the addition, with additional classrooms and a child development center with a dedicated, separate entrance in the west wing. The design extends the base-middle-top organization of the historic building and employs the rhythm of the existing windows across its facades, with a material transition to distinguish new from old while maintaining compatibility. He said a cast stone coping would serve as a cornice, with a new water table datum at the base; brick detailing connecting the lower and upper windows would articulate the vertical grain. The entrance on the west would be treated as a distinct feature, signaling both arrival and the transition between old and new. He said the south facade of the addition is designed to be symmetrical, with a surface for public art proposed at the gymnasium wing, which requires fewer windows, to maintain the overall symmetry. An additional area for art is included on the gymnasium’s east facade adjacent to the playground. The area between the two parallel wings of the addition, called the “span” by the project team, would be treated with a finer texture and rhythm to provide visual interest from Taylor Street.
Rhonda Dahlkemper of Sage Studio presented the landscape design. At the main entrance along 14th Street, a paved plaza extending to the sidewalk would provide space for gathering, pick-up and drop-off, seating, and bicycle parking. A perimeter walk would connect the main entrance to the separate child development center entrance at the lower southwest corner, the service entrance, the small dining terrace adjacent to the cafeteria, and the gym entrance at the south. An artificial-turf soccer field would anchor the south portion of the site. She said a learning garden with raised vegetable beds, picnic tables, and a small orchard would lead to the play spaces at the southeast corner, which include the play area for 5- to 12-year-olds, a basketball court, a small seating area, and the pre-K and kindergarten play area—all adjacent to the gym and secondary entrances for easy access. An outdoor classroom surrounded by a traffic garden and pollinator gardens would occupy the northeast area. The stairway at the historic entrance on the north is proposed to be reconstructed with a new ramp to provide barrier-free access; new seating areas and layered plantings are also proposed. She noted that the three existing stairways leading from Michigan Avenue up to the school would remain, though some reconstruction may be required. Heritage trees are located in the northeast corner, on the adjacent property, and along Taylor Street—all requiring protection of their critical root zones. An 8’-tall metal fence is proposed for the perimeter, with an interior 4’-tall fence extending from the northeast corner of the existing building along the eastern property line to the south and along the west side of the turf soccer field, with a controlled gate for community access. Site paving would be primarily scored concrete, with rubber surfaces at all play areas and artificial turf at the soccer field. The planting palette emphasizes native selections and pollinator and habitat support, with layered planting including canopy trees, understory and ornamental trees, a shrub layer, and perennial ornamental grasses.
Mr. Ahn presented a building section where the addition would enclose the existing gymnasium volume, indicating the proposed skylights and noting the goals of bringing natural light into the spaces, maximizing visual and spatial connections and deference to the historic school.
Mr. McCrery asked about the rooftop element floating above the new entrance volume. Mr. Ahn said this is a screen for equipment that would be located on top of the existing gym volume; the equipment would be set back from the main entrance facade by approximately 30’. Mr. McCrery asked whether the screen needs to be as tall as drawn, commenting that it almost suggests an additional floor level. Mr. Ahn acknowledged that as drawn it is likely taller than what the final design will be; Mr. McCrery suggested that this element should read more like an attic story.
Mr. Cook asked how water would be shed from the flat roofs, adding that the team seems to be working very hard to be respectful of the nationally significant historic building but is missing an opportunity in the roof treatment; he commented that the flat roof would likely create maintenance problems for the school while also failing to complement the historic building. Mr. Jacobs said the intent is to build a new roof over the existing gym volume, creating a plenum between the two that would serve as distribution space for ductwork and equipment. He said this approach would simplify construction by avoiding the creation of a well in the middle of the building and would provide a consistent new roofline.
Mr. McCrery said the desire to build a new roof over the existing one rather than repair it is evidence that flat roofs are generally problematic, and he asked why the project team is committed to flat roofs on the new addition. Mr. Jacobs responded that the team had discussed the question with staff and he cited several reasons for the flat roofs: the desire to keep the new addition visually subordinate to the historic building, the sustainability requirement to provide photovoltaic panels on a net-zero building, and the ease of maintenance of flat roof systems. He noted that when the team studied pitched roofs on the new wings, the additional height appeared to compete visually with the historic building. Mr. McCrery acknowledged the team’s reasoning but said this sounds like a list of practical arguments in favor of a predetermined aesthetic preference for flat roofs, and he emphasized that the Commission members are requesting exploration of pitched roof for the new wings. He said that work can be performed safely on pitched roofs and that photovoltaic panels can be mounted on sloped surfaces. He suggested that a hipped roof with a parapet could conceal mechanical equipment while still offering the visual benefit of a sloped profile, and that a standing seam metal roof could provide complementary contrast with the historic slate roof without replicating it. He emphasized that the existing building is defined not just by its walls but also by its roof, and the new addition would be more complementary if it also engages with the roof form.
Mr. McCrery said the renderings illustrate the fundamental issue with the proposal: the 1960s wing is a box, and the replacement also consists of boxes. He noted the consensus that the 1960s structure should be torn down, which he characterized as a good decision; however, he questioned why the replacement should follow the same typology. He also cited the domestic context of elementary education, observing that students leave their homes and come to a new place before returning to their homes, and commenting that while educational buildings are institutional in nature, there is a residential dimension to the experience of education that he believes should be retained. He suggested that residential forms, or forms residential in character, are appropriate for educational settings.
Mr. McCrery said that symmetry is central to the historic building and to the proposed landscape plan, and that this symmetry would be disrupted by the proposed treatment of the southern facade of the gymnasium wing. He suggested that a brick spandrel could be inserted into the bay instead to maintain symmetry, with public art works incorporated symmetrically on either side. He observed that the mural as shown would be in the least publicly visible corner of the building, and he suggested that a sculpture might be a more appropriate and more architecturally integrated form of public art than a mural in that location.
Mr. Cook agreed with Mr. McCrery’s comments about the south facade, noting that the historic building’s strong projecting gestures—visible in the existing front facade—are an important character-defining feature. He suggested that a similar gesture could be introduced on the “span” section of the new addition. Mr. McCrery suggested that the internal program could be reorganized to place student dining on the center axis, creating a modest forward projection that would break the “span” of the long south facade into an A-B-A rhythm, provide large windows looking out to the playing field, and allow students to enter the dining room on axis with the field rather than at the corner. He suggested that the kitchen and back-of-house functions could likely be reworked to accommodate this, commenting that a small break in the facade—not a dramatic projection—could help modulate the architecture of what is otherwise an exceptionally long facade. Mr. Cook endorsed the idea of larger windows on the south in conjunction with that arrangement. Mr. McCrery also suggested that if the two new wings were given some roof articulation with the span between them remaining flat, the wings would read more as belonging to the original architecture while the span could remain its own distinct element. He reiterated his suggestion to study the hipped roof option, commenting that the design is otherwise nicely articulated and that Commission members are not trying to change the team’s aesthetic direction but to offer practical alternatives that could enable a pitched roof solution.
Chairman Cook thanked the project team for its presentation and said the Commission looks forward to seeing the project again. Mr. McCrery affirmed that the work is of a high quality overall.
The discussion concluded without a formal action.
F. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
SL 26-157, 1445 New York Avenue, NW. Renovations and additions to building. Revised concept. (Previous: SL 26-126, July 2026) Secretary Luebke introduced the revised concept design submission for renovations and additions to an existing office building at the intersection of New York Avenue and 15th Street, NW, near the White House and diagonally across from the Treasury Department, facing the Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream. He said that at its previous review of the project in July 2026, the Commission approved the concept design and suggested several refinements to the facades, including strengthening the expression of the vertical spandrel panels in the curtainwall and continuing the mullions above the large opening of the penthouse. The Commission had also expressed interest in the option proposing a patinated-copper-like green color for the metal panels in the facade system, as well as some support for brown metal panels; accordingly, studies of the two metal colors with two options for the glass color were requested. He noted that the presentation would also address a few other minor compositional changes. He asked Abram Goodrich, design director at Gensler, to present the design revisions.
Mr. Goodrich said the matrix of studies the team had prepared for the curtainwall materials palette presented both a brown and a patinated-copper-like green color for the metal panels with different tones of glass. He noted that in the course of those studies, and in conversation with staff, the team had come to believe that a neutral glass would be the most appropriate direction, as the differences in tonality among the colored glass options were not enhancing the appearance of the metal but were instead adding too much competing color.
Mr. McCrery asked for clarification of the glass options being presented, asking if three different kinds of glass would be shown, with a neutral glass in the middle of the range. Mr. Goodrich confirmed this and explained that the team had brought a board displaying the brown metal with warmer glass on the top and green with cooler glass on the bottom, noting that viewing glass against a white background tends to accentuate color more strongly than it reads in reality.
Mr. Goodrich said the team had brought neutral glass samples to the building, opened one of the existing double-hung windows, and placed the glass samples in plane with the existing building to evaluate them. He noted that the existing historic building’s windows, installed in 1984, use a neutral glass, chosen to appear as historic and natural as possible, while the tower had been fitted with a darker, smokier glass, apparently to provide contrast. As a result of the mockup, the team concluded that a contrasting glass color would be unnecessary given the architectural contrast already present in the building, and that a single neutral glass would help unify the building composition. He noted that the neutral glass option looks virtually identical to the glass currently in the historic building, and that the glass proposed has a color rendition index of 96—close to the perfect gallery lighting standard of 100—confirming its neutral appearance. He also noted that the client had shifted its position on the metal finish and now prefers the bolder choice of the green color, finding its contrast pleasing and believing it would bring a respectful energy to the city context.
Mr. Goodrich then addressed several unresolved compositional questions. He said that at the previous review, the Commission had noted the opaque vertical spandrels at the transition between the brick base and the glassy upper stories of the facade on New York Avenue, asking the team to explore how this element might be applied to the facade as it turns the corner from New York Avenue to the west. He also noted that the Commission had observed an absence of fins above the sliding glass wall at the penthouse level, which the team has since rectified. Regarding the overall facade composition, Mr. Goodrich explained that the team recognized that the compositional logic was not sufficiently rigorous, and the team has explored whether the opaque vertical spandrel could become a recurring element. After further study, they concluded that the New York Avenue facade could be mirrored around the diagonal axis bisecting the southwest corner, allowing the facade to wrap the corner in a symmetrical and mathematically ordered way. The vertical spandrels would be 2.5' wide, within a repeating pattern of mullions spaced approximately 5’ and 7.5’ apart, derived from a fundamental 5’ module that allows flexible office planning of either 10’ or 15’ bays. He said the client’s strong preference is to keep these vertical spandrels fully glazed with vision glass rather than infilled with opaque panels, particularly on the west facade where the floor plates are cantilevered with no columns at the facade—meaning any opaque spandrel panel would simply obstruct the view. On New York Avenue, there is one location where a column at the facade already obstructs the view, but the client questioned whether an opaque panel at that single location would look like an “orphan.”
Mr. McCrery suggested that if one considers the strong vertical pilaster between the subject property and the neighboring building to the east in conjunction with the vertical spandrel in front of the structural column, it would not be an orphan but rather one of a pair; he suggested that those elements could be clad in metal, while on the west facade, where blocking views would be more consequential, the pilasters could remain vision glass. Mr. Goodrich said he believes the client would find this acceptable, as the column location on New York Avenue offers no meaningful view behind it, making the debate essentially about a single instance. Mr. McCrery agreed that this approach would be handsome and said he thinks it will help the composition.
Mr. McCrery raised a concern about the height of the horizontal spandrel on the uppermost full floor, noting that in comparison to the assembly below, the top floor spandrel looks disproportionately large, more reminiscent of lower 1970s energy-saving ceilings than the elegance of the design’s overall character. He noted that the top floor appears to have a much taller ceiling, and he asked whether the spandrel could be lifted. Mr. Goodrich suggested that there could be a transition behind the glass, with a ceiling soffit set farther back from the glass depending on tenant choices. He noted, however, that at the penthouse level, the spandrel line would conceal mechanical ducts and that the top of the sliding glass area had been aligned accordingly. Mr. McCrery suggested that the design would look better and be more consistent with the character of the building if the spandrel on the uppermost non-penthouse floor were minimized to match the floor below it. He also noted with appreciation the accented vertical elements now visible at the penthouse, which he agreed improved the design.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to approve the revised concept design, which incorporates the green color for the metal panels and a neutral glass, with a strong recommendation that along New York Avenue the 2.5’ vertical pilasters be infilled with metal, but that on the west-facing facade vision glass be used throughout, and with a further strong recommendation that the spandrel on the uppermost full floor deck be minimized to match that of the floor directly below it. He added that the review of the final design could be delegated to the staff for approval on the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix. Upon second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission adopted this action.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary