chairman bryant: good afternoon. if we wouldtake our seats and we can get started. good afternoon and welcome. this is the april7th, 2016 meeting of the national capital planning commissionchairman bryant: i would note that today's meeting is being live-streamed on the ncpc.govweb site. we do have a quorum and given that i'd liketo go ahead and call the meeting to order and without objection proceed along the linesof the agenda that has been publicly advertised. chairman bryant: agenda item no. 1 is thereport of the chairman. i'll do two things: one is i'd like to note we have three visitinggeorge washington university students who are in planning courses, so we're happy tohave them here observing today.
also, as a matter -- every april in our bylawswe have to elect or reelect a vice chair and appoint a member of the executive committee.so i get the privilege of appointing the member of the executive committee, and i'll stickwith -- i'll stick with peter may. chairman bryant: so without objection i wouldreappoint commissioner may to the executive committee. and also on the executive committeewe need a vice chair. we actually have to have an election for that. so in his absence,is there a motion to i think maintain the current vice chair? member white: i'd like to move to maintainarrington dixon as our vice chair. chairman bryant: it's been moved. and is therea second to --
member may: second.chairman bryant: it's been moved and seconded. all in favor of mr. dixon remaining as vicechair, say aye? chairman bryant: any opposed?chairman bryant: thank you. member may: just a question, though. doeshe know? chairman bryant: he does know that he wasgoing to be -- member may: okay.chairman bryant: he does know that he was going to be put in nomination. so we willconfirm with him once he arrives. member white: what else can we sign him upfor? chairman bryant: yes, indeed.chairman bryant: agenda item no. 2 is the
report of the executive directive, and wehave a number of nice things on the executive director's report.mr. acosta? director acosta: thank you, mr. chairman.as you've noted, there is a written report, but there are a few items that may be of interestto the general public. after the pennsylvania avenue developmentplan amendment was accepted by congress last month, we have now initiated the square guidelinesprocess for the potential redevelopment of the fbi j. edgar hoover site on pennsylvaniaavenue. ncpc will host two public meetings on tuesday,april 25th at 6:00 p.m. and thursday, april 28th at 9:30 a.m. to launch the next phaseof planning for the fbi site.
participant: tuesday's the 26th. director acosta: the 26th. i'm sorry. the26th. the meetings will provide an overview of thepennsylvania avenue development plan and the process for developing fbi square guidelines,as well as the overall schedule. i'll note that the two meetings will cover the sameagenda, but they're -- so people could come either in the morning or in the evening.as part of the ncpc's speaker series we are hosting patricia brown from london on april27th at 6:00 p.m. and you have a card in front of you. ms. brown was the former ceo of thecentral london partnership, which is similar to a downtown business improvement district.and they were in fact the first one in london.
and she is currently an advisor to businessand civic leaders on partnerships, developments and projects that create thriving places andeconomies. and we do invite the public and the commission to attend these upcoming events. and that concludes my report for today. chairman bryant: thank you.any questions or comments for mr. acosta? legislative updatechairman bryant: agenda item no. 3 is the legislative update.ms. schuyler? ms. schuyler: thank you, mr. chairman. i haveone item i'd like to report, and it's regarding house hr 4307, which is entitled, "the nationalmuseum of asian pacific history and culture
act." this was introduced in the house in late decemberof '15. it has been referred to three committees and in turn two subcommittees, and it callsfor the establishment of an national museum of asian history and culture within the smithsonian.and it establishes a committee to make recommendations to the smithsonian institute board of regentsconcerning the construction and to advise and assist the board on matters pertainingto the museum's administration and preservation. finally, the board of regents is requiredto designate a site for the museum within 12 months of the act's enactment.chairman bryant: thank you. ms. schuyler: yes.chairman bryant: questions of ms. schuyler?
chairman bryant: agenda item no. 4 is theconsent calendar. we have one item. it's item 4a. this is the security camera project atthe world war ii memorial on the national mall, and it's submitted by nps, nationalpark service. is there a motion on the consent calendar? member may: so moved.chairman bryant: it's been moved and seconded. are there any questions or discussion on thatitem? chairman bryant: hearing none, all in favor,say aye? chairman bryant: opposed, no?chairman bryant: motion carries. agenda item no. 5a is the concept design forthe banneker park pedestrian access improvements,
and it is submitted by the national park service.ms. spigle, welcome. ms. spigle: thank you. thank you.good afternoon, mr. chairman and members of the commission. the national park servicein cooperation with ncpc and in collaboration with the district department of transportationand hoffman-madison waterfront, also known as known as wharf, has submitted revised conceptplans for banneker park pedestrian access improvements for your review and comment. the project is located at the southern terminusof 10th street, also known as l'enfant promenade. the terminus is marked by an overlook andpark that is within the national mall unit of the park service. the park was named forbenjamin banneker, the free african-american
who completed the first survey of washington,d.c. banneker park is included with ncpc's southwestecodistrict plan, a 110-acre area with 8 federal facilities and over 70,000 workers. bannekeris also on the northern edge of the wharf's new mixed-used development along the southwestwaterfront. banneker park was designed by dan kiley, asignificant mid-century modernist landscape artist and constructed between 1967 and 1969.the parks' topography was created with construction fill from the creation of the i-395 southwestfreeway. this results in a substantial grade change between the banneker overlook at anelevation of 45 feet down to maine avenue at an elevation of 12 feet. the park is accessedby 10th streets and ramps to and from 9th
street. pedestrians and bicyclists also usethe case bridge ramp. the park was determined eligible for listingon the national register of historic places and the d.c. inventory in 2012, along with10th street. the elements that contribute to banneker's historic character include theretaining walls and topography, paving and furnishings, remaining trees, the london planetrees around the ellipse, as well as several remaining dogwood trees on the hill slopes,the remaining japanese yews along the median to 9th street, the riprap embankment, butnot the vegetation and views to and from banneker overlook.this image taken shortly after construction around 1970 shows the original grid of over700 dogwood plantings which died out likely
do to sun exposure and poor soil conditions. located immediately south of banneker parkthe wharf is a new 3 million gross square-foot mixed-use development on the southwest waterfront.as part of the 2011 phase 1 pud the wharf, in coordination with nps, is required to fundand construct a pedestrian connection from banneker overlook to the new street intersectionat the fish market along maine avenue. for the first time this connection will allowpedestrians to safely access the waterfront from 10th street and will accommodate anticipatedincreases in pedestrian traffic associated with the wharf development. the banneker connectionalong with ddot's sidewalk widening improvements will provide better access to the nationalmall via 10th street to the case bridge and
to the jefferson memorial via the anacostiariverwalk trail. the site plan shows banneker park's relationshipto the wharf and two important gathering areas within it located near the district pier hereand the market pier. the district pier will be developed as part of the phase 1 projectand will be accessed from 9th street. during phase 1 the plan is adjacent to the marketpier will be a temporary parking and event space, but will later redevelop as a gatheringspace with retail amenities. this will be accessed by the future stairway on the westside of banneker park. the need for a stronger connection to thewaterfront is identified in two planning documents. the park service national mall plan of 2010recognizes the need for improved connections
between the mall and the waterfront, and themonumental core framework plan of 2009 lays out a visionary plan to connect the monumentalcore to an enhanced southwest waterfront. previous ncpc planning work also sets ambitiousenvironmental goals for the project area. in 2013 the southwest ecodistrict plan wasaccepted by ncpc and widely supported. the plan was a response to an executive orderwhich requires federal agencies to advance environmental performance. the plan includesseveral sustainability goals which are applicable to banneker park to capture and reuse allrain water in order to meet the goal of 70 percent potable water reduction and to increasetree canopy cover in the ecodistrict from 9 to 40 percent.the southwest ecodistrict planning work continued
through march 2015 to include the programmaticdesign concept for 10th street and the interim banneker connection. just to quickly notethe banneker connection is considered interim because banneker park is also listed as aprime candidate site in the memorials and museums master plan. should a museum locateat banneker in the future, the connection would be redeveloped, however, this may notoccur for 10 or more years. therefore, the design of the banneker connection should belasting and durable, especially given its function as an important gateway to the nationalmall and the waterfront. in january 2014 our commission completed aconcept review for 10th street and the banneker connection. the project included several near-termimprovements that strengthen the connection
between the mall and the waterfront. theseincluded wayfinding from the smithsonian castle to the waterfront, pedestrian and bicyclesafety improvements including bike lanes along 10th street and around the banneker overlook,and the banneker connection, which you're reviewing today.in 2014 the commission commented favorably on these concept plans for banneker. the commissiondirected staff to use these concepts as guides when designing future development proposals.cfa also reviewed the concept plan in november 2013 and supported the proposed connectionand recommended refining and simplifying the design to be more responsive to dan kiley'sintent. the national park service and the wharf arenow carrying the project forward. the banneker
connection is the first project to be implementedfrom the southwest ecodistrict plan and will be the cornerstone for future work that demonstratesleading environmental performance. on april 1st of this year the project teamreleased the draft ea for a 30-day public comment period. the ea evaluates the no-actionalternative, alternative a, and two build alternatives, alternatives b and c. for thepurposes of this presentation i will explain the alternatives in the following order: alternativea, alternative c, and conclude with alternative b, the nps and ncpc staff preferred alternative.staff analyzed the alternatives using several planning considerations, recognizing thatthe project must balance accessibility and visitor experience, historic preservationand design and environmental performance.
looking at alternative a, the no-action alternative,the existing condition is not compliant with architectural barriers act accessibility standards,or abaas. there are no curb ramps for handicapped persons to access the sidewalks and the sidewalksnorth of banneker are not abaas-accessible because light fixtures impede the pedestrianarea. staff is requesting that the commission note that the 10th street median is not abaas-compliantand encourage coordination wherever possible with local agencies to address universal accessibilityon 10th street. in the no-action alternative the two socialtrails, the informal pathways created by desire lines would remain. the informal pathway onthe west connected banneker overlook here to the fish market below. the paved socialtrail on the east connects the banneker overlook
to the 9th and maine avenue intersection.neither of these paths are abaas-compliant and the current condition is also not whatwas designed by dan kiley since the original grid of over 700 dogwood trees have died outgiving way to an open lawn rather than a shaded tree grove. this is the plan of alternative c. the designhas a ramp and stair on the eastern side of the overlook that shares a common landingat the base along maine avenue. this alternative reintroduces the grid of trees original todan kiley's design located here. the project area triggers district storm water regulations,therefore bio-retention areas for storm water management would be located between the overlook,the stairway and the ramp in this general
area.in alternative c the western social trail would remain. this only improves pedestriancirculation on the eastern hill slope. the existing social trail to the 9th and maineavenue intersection would like continue to be used informally.this is a section of alternative c. the wider stair and ramp landing on maine avenue necessitatesmore impacts to the riprap embankment, which you see here. it's a contributing elementto the historic resource and uses a higher retaining wall along maine avenue. this is the plan of alternative b, the npsand ncpc staff preferred alternative. the design replaces the western social trail witha staircase that descends the hill slope.
the stairway sympathetically parallels thecurved retaining wall of the banneker overlook and would incorporate a bicycle trough forbicyclists to walk their bikes between the case bridge up here and maine avenue below.an abaas-compliant ramp would curve around the eastern side of the overlook and sharea common landing with the western staircase here. the eastern social trail is replacedwith an abaas-compliant ramp terminating at the 9th street intersection. this alternativealso reintroduces a portion of the grid of trees original to dan kiley's design. alternative b resolves all of the existingsocial trails and improves pedestrian circulation in a manner that is functional, safe and aestheticallypleasing, a design that's most sympathetic
to the form and geometry of banneker overlookand its historic resources. staff is requesting that the commission note that ddot requestedto widen all of the pathways from 8 feet to 10 feet to allow shared use for bicycles andpedestrians. ddot also requested to increase the current opening in the retaining walllocated here to between 16 and 20 feet and to install a bicycle ramp to connect to theroadway from the case memorial bridge ramp. with regard to environmental performance,the project area triggers district storm water regulations. alternative b locates bio-retentionfacilities at the low points along the southern hill slope and adjacent to the western staircase.storm water will naturally run into the bio-retention facilities at these lower elevations. stormwater management located adjacent to the western
stairway also presents an opportunity to accentuatethe pedestrian experience. further design work is necessary to developthese storm water elements. staff is asking that the commission request a storm watermanagement plan that addresses compliance with district and federal storm water regulationsand encourage the applicant to meet the southwest ecodistrict storm water management goals.staff is also requesting that the commission recommend that the applicant explore designstrategies that use the landscape to reveal storm water management as part of the pedestrianexperience. this is a section of alternative b. you cansee the narrower landing has less impacts to the riprap embankment and uses a shorterretaining wall along maine avenue.
this is a view from the wharf developmentat maine avenue looking north. you can see the curvature of the proposed retaining wallis compatible with the form of banneker overlook. the develop revision reflects cfa's commentsto slope rather than step the retaining walls and soften the visual impact of the retainingwalls through grading and planting. the applicant is continuing to develop designdetails. these images show preliminary ideas that could drive their designs. an integratedbicycle trough could create a more user-friendly bicycle connection along the western stair,integrated lighting could decrease the need for additional vertical light fixtures, andintegrated storm water management could showcase sustainable site features.this is a night time view from the wharf looking
north. this shows an idea of how lightingdesign could be integrated into the landscape and site which would be a more subtle andsympathetic approach to lighting. this is a view looking northwest from maineavenue and 9th street from which you can see the restoration of a portion of the groveof trees and the improved eastern ramp by retention features and street tree plantingson the north side of maine avenue and the portion of the retaining wall on the southernedge to replace the riprap embankment. in conclusion, alternative b, the nps andncpc staff preferred alternative, best meets the purpose and need for the project and providesthe best connection between 10th street and the waterfront that is most sympathetic todan kiley's design and presents opportunities
to showcase leading environmental performance.it is the executive director's recommendation that the commission support the revised conceptfor alternative b. note that the banneker park is eligible for the national register.note that the revised concept is an improvement from previous concepts. note that ddot requestedto widen pathways for shared used between bicycles and pedestrians and that 10th streetis not abaas-compliant. it is the executive director's recommendationthat the commission not support alternative c since it does not resolve pedestrian circulationand requests a storm water management plan that addresses district and federal requirementsas well as southwest ecodistrict goals, recommend that the applicant consult with staff on landscapedetails as the design is developed, recommend
that the applicant consider designs that usethe landscape to reveal storm water management and accentuate the pedestrian experience,recommend that the applicant evaluate designs for bicycle access that consider separatepedestrians and bicyclists given the anticipated increased traffic in the area and encouragecoordination with local agencies to address universal accessibility on and along 10thstreet. that concludes my presentation and i'm happyto take any questions. chairman bryant: thank you, ms. spigle. ihave one question. actually, i have two questions. this is approval for comments. when reasonablymight the preliminary come back to us? member may: i forget, but i think we're aimingfor before the august break.
chairman bryant: okay. so my other questionis if there were to be a museum on this site somewhere, where precisely would it be?ms. spigle: oh, the ecodistrict plan included several alternatives, and some are locatedalong the southern edge. some are located on either side such that it would frame aview to the south and potomac park. member may: i think it's pretty wide openon what could happen in terms of a museum location. there's no specific proposal atthis point even though there have been past attempts to try to market this site for amuseum. chairman bryant: thank you. questions forms. spigle? member gallas: i have a question.chairman bryant: commissioner gallas?
member gallas: can you go to the slide thathas the sidewalk path? it was alternative b with the blue dotted lines? there. thisone. yes. my question is if you follow that path aroundthe circle to the right and then it sort of comes down along the roadway -- and then justwondering first of all how wide will that sidewalk be and how much thought is beinggiven about how safe that is as a location for crossing?ms. spigle: right, and that's why we're suggesting that the applicant evaluate that. ddot hadrequested to widen the path here --member gallas: yes. ms. spigle: -- to be 10 feet wide, but thatwould be a shared-use path. we're recommending
that they explore separating the uses, thebicycles and pedestrians and explore a bicycle track, a protected, physically protected bicycletrack around that curvature. member gallas: i was actually focused on thedotted line to the north on the other side of the street. yes, that one.ms. spigle: this one? member gallas: yes. same thing? that willbe studied as well? ms. spigle: correct. and the planning workthat we did in the southwest ecodistrict proposes north and southbound bicycle lanes along bothcoming down this road and going up that road. member gallas: it's an unusual place to createa crosswalk. as much as i really actually very much like this design; i think it threadsthe needle beautifully for historic purposes
and the way it captures the curve of the originalcircle, but i am a little concerned about how we get pedestrians across that street.there are a lot of buses. and so i'd just be curious what the thought process will beas the final design comes -- ms. spigle: which crosswalk areyou -- member gallas: the crosswalk where it says-- ms. spigle: across 10th?member gallas: -- ada-compliant. ms. spigle: yes.member gallas: no, right here. right there. yes.ms. spigle: oh, okay. member gallas: yes. sorry. it's sort of mid-block.i can see its rationale in terms of its connection
to the pathway, but it's sort of an unnaturalplace to cross. ms. spigle: i think part of the intent aswell was to do the grading for the ramps in such a way as to not require handrails. sothat's likely feeding into its location. member gallas: i love the location of theramp once you get across the street. what i'm questioning is the northern side crossingthat street. member may: so let me talk to this a littlebit. i mean, one of the things that we're trying to do here is marry up the desire lineswith the practical locations where we can put these things. and so, right now thereis an informal crossing that's been legitimized with some paving. so you'll see a lot of pedestriansmaking a transit that's very similar to that
location right now.the other challenge to this though is given the grades on the site, particularly in thelower section there, we couldn't quite follow the desire line exactly and meet ada without-- or abaas without having handrails and so on. and that's a very undesirable thing asa sidewalk especially. so i mean, we're balancing all of these different things. i think in the long run i'm not sure aboutthe -- whether it's going to trigger needing some special precautions to make sure thatit's a safe crossing, but i can tell you that right now people coming out of that curveand heading down, it's fairly wide open. it's not the sort of thing where we're gettinghuge high speed traffic. there are a fair
number of buses, but we don't want them tobe parking along there or waiting, although it does happen from time to time.and i think we do have to do more with ddot with regard to all of the sidewalks in thatarea because it is a very difficult place to try to navigate all these things. i mean,it's very unnatural to come out of a case bridge access point and then go a distanceto the north to make that crossing and then make the crossing up 10th and then come down.but we can't really go straight across close to the fountain because of the grade changesand the slope -- member gallas: yes.member may: -- and even the curb heights there. it's not practical.
member gallas: yes, and i imagine there willbe some safety considerations or traffic calming, or something, but i frankly have wonderedabout this connection for years, and so i'm excited that it's being --member galls: -- repaired. member may: yes.member gallas: but at the same time, i also witness many buses, and they move pretty fast.a lot of these bus drivers aren't washington-based bus drivers, so they don't know -- they'renot necessarily looking for a pedestrian crossing at the midpoint of the block.member may: right. we'll make sure that it's quite visible. and i'm very familiar withit. i commute on this route on my bicycle every day, so i go through there all the time.i know many of the failings of it, at least
from a cyclist's perspective. member griffis: good question. first of all,no one can argue that this is in great demand, right? people have actually carved paths withtheir own feet up this hill -- member griffis: -- to get to a connection.and it's a critical connection from the mall to the waterfront, and certainly things arechanging as you've just shown what's happening down at the wharf. so this is of absolutecritical need. i was wondering, i'm aware that staff andi guess the applicant has met with the bid, the southwest bid that's just been set up.happens to be the second largest bid in the city, even though it's the newest. are theyin any role or capacity -- are they are being
asked to participate in any way or be a partof the maintenance plan? ms. spigle: right. they have been invitedto consulting parties' meetings, and it's my understanding that there was recently ameeting to discuss cooperative maintenance agreements between public and private partnerships. member griffis: that's great. i have a lotof interest in this area as a d.c. resident and some other reasons, but the other concernthat i have is that we can spend years looking at this and years planning it. are part ofthe discussions now with any sort of funding sources or any sort of timeline to develop?ms. spigle: right. so the wharf is anticipating development to be coordinated with openingof the fish market, which is scheduled for
2017.member griffis: the wharf is? ms. spigle: right.member may: the development of this was proffered as part of the pud for the wharf. i don'tknow the extent to whether it covers the entire cost or not. i'm kind of at arm's length becauseof the multiple hats that i wear. so i don't know whether it's fully funded or mostly fundedor what the situation is. member griffis: but your understanding isthen it's all privately funded? member may: i mean, that was how it was born.i don't know what the state of it is right now.ms. spigle: yes, the project is estimated at 3 million. ddot is willing to contribute500,000.
member griffis: do i hear a higher bid?participant: -- provide a little more? ms. miller: i'm not sure how much more. butas part of the original land development agreement -- and i think some of the people from thepark service who may not be here today have some of the details, but the original landdevelopment agreement with the city -- and that agreement actually set forth how thisis going to be funded with the wharf developers. and so, the partnership that is working onthis now is the national park service and in hoffman development group. member griffis: great. well, i think justfrom your report and the staff's report in what they're saying i think there's a lotof energy and there's a lot of differing pieces
that could be pulled together to maybe leveragesome more financing and timing to get this done. i mean, there's a lot of emphasis onhow important this is as part of the ecodistrict plan. and i think as that starts to unraveland become real maybe there are ways to implement this as part of segments of that plan.i mean, i think just again for the bid there's a lot of talk about wayfinding, wayfair signageand things like that. that's a great opportunity also to kind of leverage the other thingsthat are happening in this area to make this move quickly forward, because i just thinkit is such -- i mean, there's been a need for two decades, right? so now is the timeto get it done. member miller: yes, and we've had some initialconversations with d.c. office of planning
and department of treasury about 10th street.and we're hoping that with this connection and with the development of the southwestwaterfront and potential plans going on along 10th street that we can start to look at some-- and now with the formation of the southwest bid and that organization we can start tolook at some near-term improvements to start to get more movement and more activity alongthat corridor. member griffis: that's great. thank you, elizabeth.chairman bryant: ms. wright? member wright: i have a question. first ofall, i should know this, but who's the architect? ms. spigle: zimmer gunsul frascais -- member wright: i thought so. okay. so i havea question about the lighting, the night lighting
slide that you finished up. just a quick question.i don't understand how it works exactly. there's a band of light. yes. so i get the handraillights. is that in a -- is the lighting around the base of the retaining wall -- how doesthat work exactly? i know it's concept. i'm just curious.ms. spigle: it's my understanding -- member wright: because it's very handsome.and i want to encourage it because it's very -- i love this rendering, too, of these. it'svery hugh ferriss-y. ms. spigle: so it's my understanding thatthis would be integrated within the concrete retaining wall similar to this image. so thatwould appear along the intersection of the retaining wall and the sidewalk.member wright: so the bike trough, if they
put it in, will be an issue to integrate withthe lighting? member wright: okay. so they'll figure thatout. i love this. i'm so happy to see the spanishsteps gone, gone, gone. member wright: i hope we don't like it somuch that it's forever and we don't get a museum or two in there. just saying. i thinkit's a vastly improved concept all around. chairman bryant: other questions?chairman bryant: hearing none the question before is approval of the comments in anticipationof preliminary design sometime this summer. member may: i move approval of the edr.chairman bryant: it's moved and seconded. all in favor, say aye?chairman bryant: opposed, no?
chairman bryant: thank you very much.thank you, ms. spigle. kennedy center for the performing arts,2700 f street, nw, washington, dc kennedy center expansion connection projectagenda item no. 5b is the concept design for the kennedy center expansion connection projectsubmitted to us by the kennedy center. we have mr. hart.and as mr. hart is getting ready, i had the pleasure of a free jazz concert at the kennedycenter on tuesday night. it was terrific. it's all this week at 6:00. free jazz concerts.tickets are up 5:30. first come, first serve. if there are any other programs i can promote,let me know. mr. hart: good afternoon, mr. chairman andmembers of the commission.
the kennedy center has submitted concept designfor the expansion connection project at the john f. kennedy center for the performingarts. the main project goal here is to connect the kennedy center and the expansion projectand west to the potomac riverfront. as you're well aware, the kennedy center is locatedin northwest d.c. it's circled here. and it's situated between georgetown, which is to thenorthwest, and the national mall to the southeast. as a reminder, this connection was introducedduring the kennedy center expansion project last year, and which is shown here on theslide. i'll also note that while the commission approved the expansion project in july oflast year, this approval did not include the connection that's highlighted here. it wasonly the portion of the projects on the land
that's south of the building. so only thisportion. the kennedy center stated it would submitthe connection that you see before you in the future for review. and it's now here.the main purpose of the expansion project was twofold. they're shown here. the firstis to develop additional space for rehearsals, studios, classrooms and events. and then thesecond is to improve public access to the performing arts.so here we have the kennedy center in a bit more detail, a little closer. as you may recall,this site is located just to the east of rock creek and potomac parkway and the potomacriver and it's, as i noted earlier, very close to the lincoln memorial and the national mall,which is southeast of it.
while these elements do look fairly closein proximity, the lincoln and the kennedy center, there are a few roads that actuallyconstrain the movement, pedestrian and bicycle movement, and these are the rock creek andpotomac parkway to the west and then to the south and east is i-66 and the e street expressway.the kennedy center seeks to improve public access by creating a new connection for pedestriansand bicyclists from the west. pedestrian and bike access is shown here and it's generallyalong the north and along the east. now, creating a connection to the west isnot a new idea. it was identified in the legacy plan as well as most recently as part of themonumental core framework plan. the framework plan was developed as an overall vision formaking or improving connections between federal
enclaves and adjacent communities. the kennedycenter area was described in this plan because of its isolation, which i noted earlier.the framework plan, which you see on this slide, identified several areas pertainingto connections to the kennedy center. and these include connection to the east alonge street to the white house, a connection or developing a connection between the kennedycenter and the lincoln memorial, and then finally connecting from the river terrace,which is the western terrace of the kennedy center, down to the waterfront via a formalstair that would be on access with the building. and this would also provide access to thewater as well. you see a rendering of this, what was being imagined in this image hereon the upper left.
the framework plan was completed in 2009 priorto the expansion project being proposed and approved by the commission in 2015. so therereally is no mention of the expansion projects in the framework plan itself, and there reallyshouldn't have been. and so, now this is really re-imagining what this connection might belike because of this new expansion project. this area has a number of historic resourceswhich include the kennedy center building and rock creek and potomac parkway. the kennedycenter was designed by architect edward durell stone in the 1960s and finished -- the completionof the building was finished in 1971. as you're well aware, it's the memorial to john f. kennedy,who was our 35th president, as well as a performing arts center, as the chairman just noted.
the parkway was constructed in the early 20thcentury between 1923 and 1936 and is maintained by the national mall and memorial parks unitof the national park service. views to and from these resources are important featuresthat should be maintained and through the section 106 consulting party process thatis ongoing. it will address any impacts to any of the historic resources.so i'll talk about the staff analysis which consists of two main components. the firstcomponent is a comparison of the alternatives for the kennedy center that are included inthe environmental assessment. there are four action alternatives and one no-action alternative.each of these have their pros and cons. i will describe these alternatives in detailin upcoming slides.
the other component is an analysis of thekennedy center's preferred alternative which you have seen in your packet. generally speaking,staff is supportive of this alternative as it provides a necessary link between the kennedycenter, the potomac waterfront and the national mall. as i noted earlier, the link was identifiedas something necessary or needed in the framework plan. regarding the kennedy center's preferred alternative,the comments that i'll provide fall into a few categories that are shown in this slide.they include context and character, historic preservation, pedestrian and bicycle circulationand user amenities and experience. and i'll be incorporating staff analysis into the descriptionof the project.
under the national environmental policy actncpc and the national park service in concert with the kennedy center have developed andenvironmental assessment. this ea is currently out for public comment and the closing datefor public comment is april the 25th. since alternative a is the no-action alternative,i'll start by describing alternative b, which is shown on the slide here. it is a crosswalk.and it's very hard to see, but the crosswalk is actually here. it would be a new trafficsignal, a new crossing for the parkway. of course it would be ada-accessible. the rootwould actually continue. and you'll note that there is kind of an opening here. that's theopening for the parking garage. and the route would actually go through that parking garageto the other side to be able to access the
expansion project. you'd also be able to accessthe expansion project through the river pavilion. there's an elevator and stairwell that's locatedin that, but only when this building is open. so in comparing these it will have the leastimpactful alternative of all of them. and i'll show the others in a moment. the bicyclerouting would happen to go through the garage, which is not ideal. and there would be potentialsafety concerns because of this new pedestrian access or crossing, pedestrian and bike crossingthat would be proposed. the second alternative is the alternativec. this would include a bridge. as you see here, a ramping system and stairs on boththe north and -- excuse me, on the north and the south of the ramp that would provide pedestrianand bicycle connection. it would be ada accessible.
and i'll note that the north stairs provideboth access to the trail, as well as we're seeing it as being necessary for bridge stability.there would be land that would need to be transferred from the national park serviceto the kennedy center for this option. as a comparative alternative, this alternativedirectly connects to the expansion project. bicycles and pedestrians would be able toaccess and use the bridge to access the expansion. no conflicts with vehicular traffic as thebridge would expand the entire parkway and it does not impact the kennedy center buildingitself. it, however, would have impacts for views along the rock creek and potomac parkwayas it would be a new element added to the parkway landscape.
alternative d is very similar to alternativec. it has one exception, and that is -- or one difference, and that is instead of a stairwellat the north end of the ramp it would actually be an elevator core. and this elevator corewould provide of course access as well as the bridge stability as the stairwell did.again, we would need land transferred from the national park service for this optionas well. in comparison this option compares similarlyto alternative c. there are, as with alternative c, impacts for views along rock creek andpotomac parkway. the elevator itself is a tall element and it would be more visiblethan the alternative c stairs and the kennedy center has noted that it would be a costlieroption, would likely be a costlier option.
and finally, the alternative in front of youis the alternative e. this was first reviewed as a concept design by the commission backin 2007. staff sees this option as the most closely following the design and placementof the connection as proposed in the monumental core framework plan, however, staff notesthat as part of the section 106 consultation this alternative was recognized as being themost impactful. it is one that directly impacts the historic fabric of the kennedy centeras there would need to be two holes basically cut into the existing wall of the kennedycenter west terrace or river terrace to allow for a platform and access to the elevatorcores and stairwells on either side. again, this would be an axial option for the site.it would also impact views along rock creek
and potomac parkway as it would be two largestructures over and next to the parkway. and if you were unaware, the parkway actuallygoes underneath a portion of the -- or the terrace is cantilevered over the portion ofthe roadway. in addition, it would potentially require a larger land area to be transferredto the kennedy center from the park service, and bicycle access and circulation would bemore difficult than the previous alternatives. and finally, since the commission approvedthe expansion project last year, the 2009 framework plan connection idea, which i showedearlier, for this area would need to be reconsidered and to take into account the new conditionsof the expansion project to the south of the kennedy center building.so the kennedy center has submitted a preferred
alternative, which is shown here. it consistsof a bridge, a ramp system and a stair at the southern end of the ramp. and it's essentiallyalternative c from the environmental assessment with one main difference, and that differenceis that the kennedy center determined through further concept refinement that the northstair was not necessary for bridge stability or access and is not included in this design.so that bridge, or that stairwell is not here now.the only stairs, as i noted, would be at the southern end of the ramp, and i'll describethe project in a bit more detail in the next few slides. the first issue is with regard to the contextand character of the bridge from an urban
design perspective. there are a number ofbridges that cross the parkway, and i've highlighted the parkway here. it's a two-and-a-half-milestretch and it has a number of crossings. only a few of them are shown on this image.while these bridges serve a different function than the kennedy center project, as theseare primarily vehicular access or crossings, they do act as a context for bridges crossingthe parkway. so staff has a question. and should this bridge be an element along theparkway or an extension of the kennedy center character into the parkway landscape, or somethingthat's maybe a combination of them? here is a section of the site showing thebridge over the roadway looking to the north. this helps to give you a relative scale ofthe bridge for the rest of the kennedy center
as well as the expansion. this is of coursethe kennedy center. and then the height of the expansion project is shown here. through the section 106 process that we'rein the middle of we understand that the bridge impacts views along the historic parkway froman historic preservation perspective. we are interested in understanding how to minimizethe visibility of the structure so it's less impactful on views along this historic parkway,so bridge materials and scale are important. now here's a more detailed section throughthe bridge. as you can see, it's approximately -- excuse me, it's nine-and-a-half feet wide.the railings are three-and-a-half feet in height and the bridge structure itself istwo-and-a-half feet in depth. the railings
that they're looking at now cable rail onone side and a glass, frosted glass on the other.staff would like to note the bridge width is sized appropriately for the expected volumeof pedestrians and bike bicycle accessing and leaving the kennedy center expansion andare requesting information to understand that further. so the next set of comments focus on the circulationof pedestrians and bicyclists. there is a stair on the southern end of the ramp andthere are landings, triangular landings on either side of the ramp and the stairs. andstaff understands that are a few issues that we would like to see resolved or understoodwith the design. there are with regard to
the landings that i just showed on the slide,as well as connections to the trail and the overlooks.the ramps and landings that you see are important in understanding the bicycle and pedestriancirculation. the stair and ramp landings are shown here in a bit more detail. staff isconcerned that the area is not sufficient to allow people to stand while getting theirbearings as they are disembarking from the stairs or the ramp.as this is a frequently used trail, we would like to know if this may cause a conflictbetween trail users and people leaving the kennedy center facility. this is an image just showing -- looking southwardalong the trail and the potomac river and
the new bridge and ramp elements, and understandingif there is really a pinch point that might happen here as folks are moving along thetrail is really what we're trying to get a little bit more information around. so informationaround dimensions and clearances would be helpful in understanding this more fully.regarding user amenities and experience, there are a couple of issues. one is with regardto the overlooks included in the design, and the other is about seating. these overlooksafford a unique opportunity for views along the potomac river that people may enjoy, andwe think that these should be explored further to determine if they are sized and locatedappropriately. and is this again the right location for these elements along the rampand at the end of the bridge?
also regarding the placement of seating, staffwould like to ensure that any seats placed along the ramps or bridge should not be anobstruction that will impede circulation. the seat that's indicated here in the renderingshows -- it looks like it may be in the way and impede some movement along the ramp giventhe width of the ramp, but this bench is not dimensioned. it's a little bit hard to understandhow that might cause -- if it might cause any problems as people are moving along andup the ramp. and we would like for the kennedy center to provide information on actuallyany seating that would be incorporated into the design along the ramps or the bridge.i noted earlier that the national park service would need to transfer some land to the kennedycenter for the project. here is the potential
land area that would need to be transferred.the kennedy center and the park service are in discussions currently about this land transferand the commission will have to approve this land transfer prior to the final approvalof the project. and with that, it is the executive director'srecommendation that the commission support the bridge/ramp/stair alternative as an importantlink to the regional trail network improving access between the kennedy center, the potomacwaterfront and the national mall. we would like further investigation into several projectelements including how to minimize user conflicts with the new facility and the trail and therelationship of the bridge to its context. further, we note that the section 106 consultationis ongoing.
we request a further evaluation of the characterof the bridge, note that the river terrace alternative, while it's most similar to themonumental core framework plan, concept connection would likely result in the greatest impactto historic resources, including the kennedy center and the rock creek and potomac parkwayand poses challenges for bicycle accessibility and circulation. and finally, that the commission request thefollowing information to be submitted at the time of preliminary review: additional detailthat clearly delineates the various elements including ramps, stairs and landings and thebridge as well as the route which connects to an nearby trail; demonstrate that thisfacility is wide enough to handle the anticipated
capacity and demonstrate how the ramps andlandings will be oriented to ensure continued functionality of the paved recreation trail;and finally, detailed drawings demonstrating the character and configuration of the overlooksas well as looking at any proposed seating. and with that, that concludes our presentationand i'm available to answer any questions. and the representatives from the kennedy centerare also here. chairman bryant: thank you very much.eric? mr. shaw? member shaw: i just have a -- i guess i'mconcerned it feels like such an add-on now. and so, i don't know how -- at the top rampit sort of blends into the new development or it blends away or just relates to the plaza,relates to a view. it just sort of feels like
they just sort of stuck it on the side. andso i would love to see does it empty into the lobby or empty close to a plaza that'sgoing to be programmed some more? even for the switchbacks going down does it do somethingthat sort to -- that has to do more with the trail going forward or have some stronger-- does it terminus? it just feels like it just stops and endsand doesn't really do anything but move people. but if that's what it's supposed to do, iguess that's fine. but we're spending all this money thinking about orientation andvistas and views and elevations and it just seems like there needs to be a little bitmore there, at least for me. chairman bryant: i would note i noticed oneof the questions is to better determine whether
it should be kind of a stand-alone -- be seenas a stand-alone project or integrated into the kennedy center design. and for my ownmoney, if the kennedy center is paying for it, then i think the elegance of the designbeing such that it is recognized to be part of the kennedy center so that it is recognizedto be a kennedy center provided public amenity. they should get the credit for it. and i thinkwith certain design elegance it can be. ms. wright? ms. white. excuse me.member white: i just had a couple of comments and questions. and i appreciate the staffpaying attention to how this thing is going to function as well as the aesthetics, aseric was just pointing out. and i guess i'd like to hear more from the design team, ifthat wouldn't be inappropriate --
chairman bryant: sure.member white: -- to understand what the point of view is here. and what you were just saying,is this an extension of the architectural elements of the center? is it to celebratethis parkway? and i would just like to understand a little bit better what that point of viewis from an aesthetic perspective. and then from a functional perspective, i'vebeen working on an urban trail for the last 10 years, so i'm keenly aware of user conflictson a trail. and i'm really concerned about nine-and-a-half feet being the width. so i'dbe curious to hear a little bit more. and then thirdly, these are really sharp turnson a trail and these overlooks are wonderful in concept. and i can imagine this is goingto be incredibly popular for selfies --
member white: -- and people wanting to getthemselves in front of the kennedy center. so i'm really concerned and i'm glad to hearthe staff recommend that a lot more thinking and detail go into the final design of thisand how it's going to be used, because it's going to be enormously popular. so i'd loveto just hear more from the design team about those elements, if that's all right.chairman bryant: please. then we'll get to mr. griffis and ms. wright.mr. mcvoy: thank you. i'm chris mcvoy. i'm senior partner at steven holl architects.thank you for the question and for the comments. i think there are some very good points thathave been made that we look forward to incorporating into the development.in terms of the aesthetics, maybe, carlton,
you could go to the section and i could explainsomething there. we saw an alignment of two needs for thisconnection in the aesthetic development, and this relates to the question of it is integratedto the kennedy center or is it more in the language of the masonry arches of the parkway?and if you notice, the kennedy center has this thin roof, a very thin plane. so we werepicking up on that and also thinking that would also have the least visual impact. sothose two needs to connect to the architecture that's there, that's very long along the shortline there. it's the most prominent piece of architecture. to integrate with that aestheticand also that thin line makes it very minimal in terms of minimizing the impact of the view.that's also why the -- if you look at the
section of the bridge, it's v-shaped. so theedges are thin; maybe you could go to that drawing, carlton, so that the expression ofthe bridge is thin and where we need the structural depth is in the middle. so that's the kindof sensitivity to the aesthetics that we're trying to do that thin horizontal white linethat connects to the kennedy center but also minimizes the impact. and in terms of the width, i think those aregood points. it was narrower. in its first round it was eight feet. we did studies withmock-ups, bike paths, and we feel this is a good width. but we should go back and lookat that and look at benchmarks to give you guys a better sense of how this relates toother similar conditions.
i'm happy that you think it's going to bea great place for selfies. we certainly hope that -- and looking at the landings is a goodidea. we are -- as you know, the park is quite thin there and the current path, the currenttrail is very thin. so we're also trying to -- it's a balance between minimizing the impactand fitting it in, but also providing the generous circulation. so maybe we got a littlebit too much on the low impact and we need to make things a little wider. so all thesecomments are very helpful. thank you. any other questions that you -- member white: yes, i just had a follow-up,but first i want to say, and should have said this at the outset, how excited i am to seethis even being contemplated. so again, i
really compliment the kennedy center for makingthis contribution and connecting people to the riverfront, because it's an extraordinarygesture. and i think these are things you can work out in design. and this renderingmakes me think of a follow-up question on the glass, the sort of frosted glass.mr. mcvoy: yes. member white: and to me, just personally,it's a little odd to be standing here and have that on one side and the clean opennesson the other side. mr. mcvoy: yes.member white: and i'm just curious if you would speak a little bit more about that. mr. mcvoy: that is -- and it also relatesto the low impact, because actually some of
the comments from the historic group has saidthe glass obstructs that and makes it thicker. so we are studying that. but the thinkingis again to balance the low impact and the thin visual-ness with some sense of protectionfor the pedestrian using the bridge. so our sense was that the glass -- for those whowant a little protection from the cars and the traffic that it would feel a little bitmore protected crossing the bridge. and we felt that if it was translucent glass insteadof opaque material, it maintains that lightness. we've used this translucent glass detail outdoorsmany times. and we had some images that we had sent. it captures the light. so even thoughit doesn't allow the view through, it feels lightweight. it doesn't feel like an opaquepiece. so we thought it was a good balance
of having a little bit of protection on thebridge with the -- but also feeling light. but we're open -- we are looking at just cablerail option both sides, which would minimize the impact and maybe would address your questionof the two different sides. member white: and it's all important considerations.it's just why one side, not both sides? because traffic is coming in both directions.mr. mcvoy: it's a balance. member white: i mean, it's --mr. mcvoy: it's just a -- like for those who don't mind or -- it provides some protection,but also gives openness. and that's all. it was just trying to find that balance. butwe are looking at an all-cable rail option, which may be the best. and we'll look at thewidth as well. thank you.
chairman bryant: i like the glass.mr. griffis? member griffis: thank you, mr. chairman. mostof mine was covered. i was just going to say that i think one of the perspectives didn'tdo this justice. and as we get into the sections in a little bit closer the detail, you seethat kind of refinement that's coming about. i think this is an incredibly difficult problemto solve, but i think this is becoming a very elegant solution to it. so i look forwardto it progressing. one question i had, technically -- becausei got now confused with your presentation, are we looking at the kennedy center preferredoption or are you recommending alternative c with the stair?mr. hart no, no. i'm sorry. the alternative
c was just that it is a -- that is what theybased it on. so it is more like that than any of the other alternatives.member griffis: right. right. great. okay. thank you.chairman bryant: ms. wright? member wright: well, it seems to me that fundamentallythere's a philosophical question that needs to be considered here, and that is whetheror not the bridge is part of the kennedy center composition or not. i have to confess i haven'tbeen a fan, but this is a separate question. and it does seem to me that philosophicallyi land on it would be a completely different thing if the river pavilion persisted andthe design of this bridge as -- i do think it's the best alternative. i think i -- inthe absence of the river pavilion, which ironically
i like the best of the original compositions-- member wright: -- and now that it's gone,it seems to me philosophically i land on the other side, which is that it's a bridge, notto nowhere -- member wright: -- but it's a bridge that withoutan architectural destination calls for a philosophically different approach, because it seems to methat regardless of who's paying for it, when you're driving along or walking along, you'renot thinking to yourself, shucks, i wonder who paid for this. you're wondering, well,is this part of the kennedy center composition or is this an intrusion into park land that'sa little bit much of a much-ness? and i think i fall in the latter camp and believe thatthe composition -- because it doesn't have
an architectural terminus, the language feelsinappropriate to me. and i think i'd rather see something that is more sensitive to itsbrethren and more aware of itself as an intrusion into what's no longer a natural landscape, but is stillpark land. chairman bryant: mr. gallas?member gallas: i first want to say that i'm all for connectivity. i think it's critical.this is i think an opportunity to do something more beautiful than we're looking at. it feelsforced to me. and i guess if i -- could you go, carlton, to the slide that you had theaccess points along p street, or what was it? you had red dots with the -- because itravel this area a lot and -- that's good, yes.
so what i'm trying to remember from my mind'seye, there is a traffic light that essentially -- right before you approach the kennedy centerproperty there's a traffic light, is that right?participant: yes. member gallas: yes.member gallas: yes, coming from the north. that's right. and i know i'm new to this,so if i'm causing questions that have already been answered, i apologize in advance. butit would seem that if you could navigate across that traffic light to the kennedy center side,the east side of all of this, you're already over there. and then the kennedy center'sproperty and its master plan could address this. and i'm trying to understand. i knowthere's a lot of grade here, so i understand
that, but what is the condition at that trafficlight? mr. hart: let me get to -- this will be alittle bit helpful because it shows where -- where you're talking about is an at-gradecrossing here, which is just north -- basically at the watergate. so you're able to crossover here. and then the -- this is -- the building itself is 600 feet long.member gallas: yes. mr. hart: so you're going between here andhere is, i don't know, two blocks probably, two city blocks --member gallas: at least. mr. hart: -- if you were walking that. it'sa long -- got a distance to go. and so the issue really is around how to connect thesouthern area to this kind of vibrant area
that is now being constructed actually. andas people are moving along here they may not have known or may not be able to see it, andif they would then want to go to it, they'd have to -- and they only have the at-gradecrossing, they'd have to go back up to where this is to be able to cross to get to thisif no bridge or no other crossing was at the southern side.member gallas: okay. mr. hart: and so, what the kennedy centerhas said is that they are trying to create this connection down here that would be apartner i guess to the one that's to the north. but right now you don't really have -- aspeople are moving down south along the river they would encounter this and then not havean ability to get up there and then realize
that they have to walk back to get over towhere that is. member gallas: so, carlton, i was actuallythinking more about on the southern side. you see where the -- just south of the rooseveltbridge where the dotted line come together there?mr. hart: yes. member gallas: i guess that -- is that a trafficlight or not? member gallas: it's no traffic light? okay.and i'm wondering is that a better place to cross? and then you're on the side of thekennedy center and could go underneath the roosevelt bridge. so i'm trying to understandthe condition underneath the roosevelt bridge that gets you to the kennedy center's property,at which point maybe they could address connectivity
to their campus once you're there.mr. hart: yes, and again, i'm not -- i think it's a valid point to think about maybe possiblyhaving another crossing. i think one of the difficulties and one of the things that thekennedy center has seen is that the roadway that you're talking about is very curvy andpeople are kind of -- they're moving along it. driving. they're moving along it. andi think that the issue that you run into is where do you introduce a crossing at an areathat you may have even worse sight lines and that may potentially cause some greater conflictsbetween pedestrians and bicyclists and vehicles that are moving along the parkway. and i'mnot going to speak for the park service. i don't know if peter wants to -- commissionermay wants to add something to that as well.
member gallas: yes. well, i'll let -- i haveone more comment and then, peter, i'd be happy to hear your comments.the bottom line for me is this is a beautiful part of washington. this is an iconic location.it was positioned there because of that. and this building represents something incrediblyimportant to what people think of when they think of washington, d.c. and it's presencealong the waterfront. and i feel as though we're really intruding on that. and i'm justvery -- i love the connectivity. i think it's important. i'd just like to make sure thereare no other options than building an intervention that feels like it was forced in that locationwith sharp angles, with -- as opposed to grace and beauty. and i guess those are my comments.chairman bryant: mr. may?
member may: so i think i'm going to try tohit on a number of points that have been made. first of all, so that people understand thenature of this crossing, it is being designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, butit is not intended to be a trail on which cyclists are going to be riding alongsideof pedestrians just walking or people in wheelchairs or what have you. i mean, the intention isfor this to be a walk-your-bike connection. we're also practical and we know that a lotof people are not going to walk their bike particularly when there are not a lot of peoplearound. and so, there may be people, commuters coming at hours that they may wind up riding.so we're trying to make it as safe for them as well. but it is not intended to be -- itis intended to be more of a pedestrian bridge
than a multi-purpose trail. the park service is very supportive of makingthis connection because we do see a strong need for it and it's going to get much, muchstronger. i mean, there was already a need for it. that's why we were looking at thestairway from the terrace. and it's going to become even stronger now with this newfacility that invites all of the outdoor activities. i mean, the complex that the kennedy centeris building is not just about having those three pavilions. it is about the outdoor space.and that is what the bridge is intended to connect to, is that outdoor space. so there's-- there is a there there on the kennedy center side.that being said, the essential question is
does this become a bridge that is part ofthe parkway or a bridge that is part of the kennedy center? and it is a bit of a struggle.we certainly prefer bridges over our park land to be very much in keeping with the parkland, however, given the proximity to the other -- the roosevelt bridge and the factthat it would -- anything that we would do that would be more like a park bridge is goingto be very heavy and much more impactful from a visual perspective. and we already havethe roosevelt bridge having a very big visual impact on the views from that part of theriver. we thought it was appropriate to have thisread as part of the kennedy center addition. and so, we're comfortable with that kind ofa design approach, particularly since it has
been done i think in the most minimal way.i mean, i don't think i've seen a pedestrian bridge that seems as light as this becauseof the way it has been detailed. and i think that's been done very carefully.as far as the other connection points, i think we see the utility in having much more connectivitytoward the memorial core. i mean, this is the kennedy center memorial. we want it toconnect to the lincoln memorial and the washington monument. i mean, it is part of that continuumof presidential commemorations. so we want that connection to be happening and we wantit to be easy for pedestrians to get to it. and so, that means for us looking at the connectionsall the way through from the lincoln memorial. and in fact we have a separate study thatwe're starting up with the kennedy center
with federal highways to look at how we improveaccess to the kennedy center from the trail and from the monumental core. so we may well wind up introducing other connectionpoints that may lead to being able to get there on foot kind of under the bridge. unfortunately,i don't think there's enough room to have all of the travel lanes that we want to have.and even where the trail goes now, that yellow line that crosses under the tr bridge, that'spretty narrow, and we're looking at whether we can actually knock a hole through the abutmentand make a tunnel connection through there so that you don't have a -- it's like fivefeet. and that's where pedestrians and cyclists all go in there.
and so, i don't think there's any room tothe north. i don't recall exactly how much room there is, but i don't think there's muchthere. so we're looking at that other way of making the connection through the abutmentpotentially. but we want to be able to make that whole passage from the -- i think we'reactually going all the way down to juarez circle, which is on the south side of lincolnmemorial in terms of the access improvements and pedestrian improvements all the way upto virginia avenue, because we see an opportunity all the way through there.we'd like to find ways of slowing down vehicles, because right now we have vehicles that gomuch more than the 25-mile-an-hour speed limit. and we also have that condition during rushhour where the lanes all go one way. and so
it really is a very wide kind of speedwayand with some very sharp turns as well. so we're trying to balance all that stuff outin the broader picture. but we do think that having looked at this from a lot of differentways that this is the best way to go and we're very happy that it's moving forward at thispoint. chairman bryant: further comments?member griffis: and one more comment to mine because i'm still a big fan, but -- member griffis: -- i was picking up on someof what mr. shaw was saying and i think i want to continue that, if i understood whathe was saying. but it's kind of the start and the end of the bridge and how it actuallyattaches and how it attaches to the kennedy
center, because it does look like it's justkind of -- it's a nine-and-a-half-foot opening and whatever is happening there. and i thinkthere's a great opportunity to widen that, flange it, to do whatever fits in terms ofthe design that actually makes it look like it is an integral part of what's happeningthere. i also think that that's a great way to starta journey down a path. you know, you can take a moment, you can look over, you can see whereit's going, you can see where it's coming to and you're not going to hold up anybodyelse that knows exactly what they're doing. and i think at the end i know there's sensitivityto the grass area where it terminates into the rock creek path, but it seems to me maybethere's a way to do some impervious surfaces
that might allow for people to better integrategoing on the path, by it or up the ramp. participant: like a landing or --member griffis: right. exactly. exactly. participant: that's a good point.member griffis: that's all i have. thank you. chairman bryant: yes, sir?member cash: so, i mean, one point i just wanted to make, i mean, so after you've crossedthe bridge with just this switchback, i mean, you're essentially walking the length of afootball field to get down to the bottom of it if you just stay on the ramp and don'tgo down those last few stairs. and plus, by having that switchback you're really makingit a lot wider, especially down there at the ground level where you see it.
so i mean, i know that the stairs were movedbecause it's less stuff that you're putting there in that space, but i'm wondering ifyou don't have more utility by keeping stairs that gets you closer to the kennedy centerand maybe allowing the ramp to slope a little farther down, because you're practically at66 anyway, and maybe that gets you some more of the width. but it just seems like the switchbackadds a lot of bulk down there at the end of it.and if you're really connecting to the riverwalk, you're walking down practically to 66 justto get back up to the nice part of the riverwalk there. so i'm just wondering if there's kindof balance there with providing for stairs which are more utility for a lot of the folksthat want to get to the river rather than
walking a football's length to get you downto the bridge. so just my two cents. chairman bryant: thank you.mr. hart: appreciate that. chairman bryant: the question before us isapproval of comments. member may: i would move the edr.member rhodes: second. chairman bryant: it's been moved and seconded.sensing no further comments, all in favor of the edr, say aye?chairman bryant: opposed, no? chairman bryant: one shrug. unanimous.chairman bryant: thank you. chairman bryant: agenda item 5c is the approvalof preliminary and final site and building plans for engine company no. 22 submittedby the district dgs. we have ms. lee. we do
three to publicly comment when we get to thatpoint, i'll mote. ms. lee, welcome. ms. lee: thank you. good afternoon, mr. chairmanand members of the commission. the district department of general services has submittedpreliminary and final site and building plans for engine company 22.the project is located in northwest washington, d.c. along georgia avenue, a major gatewaycorridor that connects silver spring to downtown d.c. at the intersection of butternut streetin this area. the site is located approximately six blocksfrom the district boundary here and about two miles south of downtown silver spring.the project is located in the takoma neighborhood
outside of two important historic district:the walter reed medical center here and the takoma park, and approximately half a milewest of the takoma metro station, which is located here.the new fire station will allow the relocation of engine company 22 from the current buildinglocated approximately one mile south of the proposed site along georgia avenue in thislocation, and the existing building is over 100 years old, crowded and needs major upgrades. here is a closer look at the site. the siteis about 14,000 square feet. to the west you can see the walter reed medical center formercampus across georgia avenue in here. to the north there is low-rise multi-family residentialbuildings. and to the east there is single-family
detached homes in this area. and to the souththere is a mid-rise residential across a public alley.here you can see existing conditions. from georgia avenue towards the east larger multi-familybuildings transition to single-family homes, as you can see in this image. the site iscurrently occupied by walter reed building 18, a four-story vacant hotel that once housedwounded soldiers. the existing building is not a historic landmark, has not reuse potentialand will be demolished to accommodate the new fire house. i note that the proposed firehouse has a total building area of 19,300 square feet and will be smaller than the existing28,000 square feet hotel that currently occupies the site.
the site is located in close proximity tothree major buildings eligible for the national register of historic places within the walterreed campus. these buildings include officer housing buildings 8 and 9, 9 here, and the provost marshal house, building 12 inthis area. these images of existing conditions are asample of the eclectic architectural character of the common neighborhood. here you can seethe immediate context of the site. to provide some context i will briefly describea series of events that led to the project today. as you may know, we recommended closerof the walter reed army medical center in 2005. the federal government declared 66.5acres on the western portion of the campus in this area including building 18, a surplusproperty, and made it available to the district
for reuse. in december 2014 the army turnedover building 18 to the district government for emergency management response purposes.engine company 22 will be the first project implemented on the campus transformation.the district prepared three major planning documents to provide guidance for the futureredevelopment of walter reed. the first one is the base reuse plan which provides additionfor the reuse of the site as a mixed-use destination. the reuse plan included a land use plan withgovernment and non-profit uses for some of the existing buildings on the site, as youcan see on the right. and it included the relocation of engine company 22 to building18. you can see highlighted in red. the second document is the small area planwhich includes design guidelines for future
development consistent with the base reuseplan. while the small area plan included a redevelopment strategy for the district portionof walter reed, i note that it did not include the conditions for building 18 site. and finally, the third document is a textand map amendment to establish zoning for a portion of the former walter reed campusconsistent with the small area plan and approved by ncpc last summer.turning to the overall project goal, the fire and emergency medical services department'sgoal is to improve service to the surrounding community with a new state of the art, durable,energy-efficient facility. the proposal includes a two-story fire stationwith one level of underground parking. the
project includes a new apparatus bay, curbcut out on georgia avenue; you can see it here, pedestrian access from butternut street,green roofs, a 15-foot setback between the fire house and the single-family residentialbuildings to the east in this area, and a six-foot overhang projecting towards georgiaavenue on butternut street within the property line, and streetscape improvements. i note that the commission on fine arts hasformally reviewed the design concept three times and the current design has improvedas a result of coordination with cfa and the community. last month cfa reviewed the conceptdesign that is in front of you today and approved the submission with comments. in general,cfa expressed support for the contemporary
character of the building which contributesto the fire station's civic quality. cfa had two major comments regarding materialsand signage, and i will summarize the comments and i'll walk you through the project.on the ground floor the main components consist of on-grade bays for ambulance and fire trucksand a multi-purpose community room with capacity for about 30 people. you can see it in thisarea. i note that the community room includes vision glass with vertical fins on the eastfaã§ade in this area. here you can see the six-foot building overhang highlighted inblue in relationship with the properly line. the second floor includes quiet uses. thewest faã§ade includes a curtain wall system with vision glass and vertical colorful glasslouvers and opaque glass on the rest of the
volume where transparency and access to naturallight are not desired. cfa was supportive of the curtain wall andcommented that the solar shading fins on the upper volume added character along georgiaavenue, but suggested that a solid material may be more appropriate instead of the opaqueglass proposed for most sides of the upper volume.the basement includes underground parking for employees and the building material selectionemphasizes the different volumes and uses of the building. the design includes brickcladding on the first floor and a glass curtain wall on the upper floor. the massing emphasizesheight along georgia avenue with a maximum building height of 36 feet. you can also seea planting area with ornamental trees separating
the two curb cuts. cfa supported the concept of signage as atransition element within the overhang above the engine bay doors, but requested the applicantto refine the scale and detail of the sign. cfa will continue to work with the applicantto develop the final design and the applicant plans to submit next month to cfa for finalapproval. the design team explored a second color optionfor the vertical louvers, but i note that this is not the preferred alternative forthe community or the applicant. along butternut street the massing steps downto 17 feet along this area towards the single-family structures to provide better scale and respondthe context. you can see the community public
entrance along butternut street in this areaand the glazing and vertical fins on the east faã§ade provide daylight with the communityroom. moving to staff analysis, to analyze the projectwe focused on urban design, historic preservation and environmental considerations. we alsolook at materials and massing, landscape and sustainability and the future character alonggeorgia avenue. we found that the project meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensiveplan and the height act. regarding materials and massing, during thedesign process the proposed material selection and massing has evolved to respond to cfaand community feedback. the original design included a rotated upper volume. as you cansee the overhang extended outside of the property
line. the design includes large metal tilesand colorful glass. the revised design included revisions to thebuilding geometry and materials. the design team eliminated the rotation on the secondstory volume to a configuration that is parallel to the ground floor and incorporates a six-footoverhang along georgia avenue and butternut street within the property line. i note thatthe overhang does not extend into the right of way.lastly, the design team revised materials from metal to brick on the first floor anda simpler glass treatment on the upper floor. the latest design includes refinements andmore detail on the curtain wall system and includes vertical colorful louvers to reducesolar heat gain and allow natural light. the
brick is compatible with the context whilethe curtain wall and louvers add character and visual interest along this major corridor.the project is consistent with the urban design elements. the distinct architectural treatmentwill reinforce the experience of arrival along the gateway and the massing will provide asense of transition. and finally, the proposed six-foot overhandinside the property line does not extend within the street right of way, therefore the designavoids physical intrusions that obscure the character of the right of way and georgiaavenue viewshed. moving to landscape and sustainability, theproject includes a planting area with ornamental trees separating the curb cuts along georgiaavenue and street and shade trees along butternut
street and a mixture of shrubs, ground coverand grasses. in addition, the project includes green roofs, infiltration planters and a reductionof impervious areas by 13 percent. the project is consistent with the federal environmentelement. the design implements sustainable strategies to reduce storm water runoff andestablishes a compact development. now i'm going to discuss the future mixed-usecharacter along georgia avenue. the proposed walter reed redevelopment along the west sideof georgia avenue includes moderate to medium-density mixed use with a town center and open spaces.the contemporary design of the proposed fire station is compatible with the future redevelopmentof this area. under local preservation review process thedistrict of columbia state historic preservation
office reviewed the project in october 2015and determined that the project will have no adverse effect on historic properties.the project is consistent with the historic preservation element. building 18 is not historicallysignificant and is not located in a historic district. the demolition of the neglectedwalter reed building 18 to accommodate a public facility is a positive symbol that reinforceslocal goals for this area. to conclude, the executive director's recommendationis for the commission to approve the preliminary and final site and building plans for enginecompany 22 and find that the proposed engine company 22 would not be inconsistent withthe comprehensive plan nor affect other federal interests.with this i conclude my presentation. i'm
available for questions the commission mayhave. and also the applicant, design team, and representative from the district fireand emergency medical services are here to answer any questions.chair bryant: thank you, ms. lee, very much. questions?commissioner gallas: mr. chairman, i'd just like to indicate that my firm is involvedwith master planning of the walter reed privatized side of georgia avenue, and so i'm going torecuse myself from any role in this vote. chair bryant: yes, sir. thank youcommissioner gallas: thank you. chair bryant: oh, that's right. we have publiccomment. excuse me. we have three for public comment. in this order, first ms. sara green;second, faith wheeler; and third, andre carly.
is ms. green here? please. welcome, and forthe record, state your name and note you have three minutes and there's a clock on the wall.ms. green: good afternoon. i'm sara green. i live at 7106 piney branch road, nw, nottoo far from this site. i've been there over 40 years, and i'm speaking only for myselfand not for any organization or the commission. i want to thank the city, the fire department,the architects. they've been very gracious about working with the community.first, a couple of things. there's a couple of corrections on the staff report. there'sone important one on page 3. on february 22nd, it was not the design review committee. itwas the advisory neighborhood commission. the design review committee is recognizedto the anc, but we don't have any informal
role outside of that, so people who votedwere the commissioners and not the design review committee. the most important thing that i think concernsme is a lot of the statements from shpo and just in general that somehow this building,engine 22, it's not - don't worry about it. it's not historic, it's not this, it's notthat, but it's somehow in another continent from walter reed.it really isn't. if you look at this drawing, i think you have this colored thing, is fromthe programmatic agreement of the army which established all the historic resources atwalter reed, so this building is within the area of potential effect, and it is eyesightdistance, it's spitting distance, to the officers'
quarters 8, 9, and 12, and so i think to nothave any historic discussion about this, if there's any relevance is i guess i huge disserviceto the community, so it is - it should be looked in the context of walter reed, andi don't think it really has been. personally, i don't think it works, the designworks. when you look across the street to the magnificent officers' quarters, i knowa contemporary building can be perfectly appropriate in the historic district. i'm not asking tohave some kind of reproduction of walter reed building there. i understand that, but i'dlike you - my request would be for you not to do the final approval because what theanc recommended, and i support the anc recommendation, the anc recommended that the design reviewcommittee of the anc work with the applicant
and your staff and the cfa staff and to tryto do some more work on the exterior of the building to make it more appropriate to walterreed, to its neighbors across the street. i understand that they really want to do this.i understand there is a pressing need. i understand that, but my training to any extent in architectureis a bad building is forever, and i'd like to see this become a better building in thewalter reed context, and i think that it can be, so i don't want to throw cold water onthis entirely, but i'd like to see it better. thank you.chair bryant: thank you, ms. green, very much. next up is ms. wheeler. ms. wheeler: good afternoon. i'd like to thankyou all very much for coming together today
to help me celebrate my birthday today. it'svery thoughtful of you. i'm faith wheeler, a member of the committeeof 100, and i would like to thank you also for the opportunity to present the views ofthe committee of 100 on this particular proposed design.as ms. lee noted, it will be the first new building in the walter reed campus, formerwalter reed campus, since the brac closure. the committee of 100 has participated in countlessmeetings and hearings on this - on the walter reed campus in total, and including since2014, march 2014 really, when this design was first proposed for the engine 22, so ithas been - the committee of 100 has been very, very active on both the walter reed campusas a whole for a very long time and since
the very beginning of the thoughts to putit in - to make a design for the engine 22. the context of the neighborhood, i want topoint this out very particularly, and say also specifically, the committee of 100 welcomesthe impending move of engine 22 to the neighborhood, to the site.it is directly across the street as ms. green pointed out and ms. lee from stately historicbuildings on the main walter reed campus and it is part of the historic takoma communityof pre-world war ii residences. i think you have received photos that showsomething of the context of the historic takoma community where the engine 22 site is located. as a guide and a reference point really forfine firehouse architecture, i might refer
to the following observation in the d.c. historicpreservation offices of january 2011 staff recommendation for landmark designation of1897 engine 22 as well as for others "each was designed to fit its site and suit itsneighborhood architecturally." the neighborhood - actually the community since march 2014has repeatedly requested that the design compliment the restrained architecture in the historiccommunity of takoma and feel that we need some more work on this.so the committee of 100 requests that the architect bring down the scale of the buildingwith some more articulation of the massing and more a little more detailing.they've done some work on it. more articulation is certainly - i'm very happy that there'smore articulation there, and there's been
some work on the massing of the vertical silverlouvers. that's helpful, but it still seems very massive for this rather restrained andhistoric community in takoma. we're not suggesting that the firehouse shouldmimic the proximate apartment buildings nor replicate the historic firehouses but justtake clues in successful buildings that constitute a desirable neighborhood of nearly a century,and the committee of 100 is looking forward to an improved design. lastly, i will confess that i'm a 37-yearresident of takoma, two and a half blocks away, so i know the area pretty well. thankyou. [insert - committee of 100 letter]
chair bryant: thank you, ms. wheeler, andlast, andre carly. ms. green: he's not here.chair bryant: not here. ms. green: is it possible for me to add onepoint? chair bryant: please, quickly.ms. green: thank you very much. something that i didn't have time to say and i willbe very brief. i think that mixed use in the sense of adding some affordable housing tothis site should be considered if it's not considered. i understand this is late. i get that to belooking at this, but that's a reason not to do the final approval, so there is discussionin the district elements of comprehensive
plan, and i've included that in the packeti handed out that encouraged this, and so all i would say is consistent with the anc4b resolution that more consideration be given to a building that can either accommodateit in the future or putting some housing there now, affordable housing, as our need is extreme,and this is georgia avenue. it's great bus service. it's really not a bad place to putsome affordable housing as long as the building is not intrusive, as long as the density canbe dealt with. thank you. chair bryant: thank you very much. that concludesour public comment period, and we will return the discussion to the commission. discussion.mr. shaw. commissioner shaw: mr. chairman, so i've beentalking to my staff about this too because
apparently we touched it in three differentplaces and from historic preservation review, from our senior advisor who wrote the zoningguidelines, and all of them feel comfortable with this. i know there have been some concerns aboutdesign. i think as we shared, we have a design division that's also working with cfa as wellto make sure if there's any question about the district interest as related to designthat we will work as cfa continues to review this, so just as the office of planning, we'recomfortable with this. chair bryant: thank you.commissioner cash: can i just ask first if - do we know. i believe this has been torndown and the groundbreaking has already happened
on this building. are we at a point - don'tknow if dgs or fems would want to speak to this. i mean is funding in place to move forward?is this kind of already taken off and we're just giving our approval to something that'salready finalized? chair bryant: mr. shaw, do you know?mr. floca: good afternoon. matt floca, project manager from the department of general services.so you are correct. there was a groundbreaking on the building. the building has been demolished.we are approaching the permitting in a phased approach, so we went for abatement, demolitionand foundation grade mixed, so we have not - we have not submitted for a building permityet, but we are underway. commissioner cash: but is funding in placeand so it's left the gate and is moving forward.
mr. floca: yes, there is funding in place,yes. commissioner cash: okay. i'll just say thatfrom the design perspective i think that - and i've talked to chairman of the council aboutthis too, i mean it does seem pretty out of context and i mean it's contemporary. a lotof the stuff going on at walter reed across the street is contemporary but i think ina different way. like, i mean our committee has been dealingwith a lot of the designs that are going to be going in there. there's a lot brick. there'sa lot of old field that's still updating and this just seems to be completely out of contextwith all the stuff that i've seen that's going on across the street at walter reed, so i'djust kind of say that i agree with some of
the comments we've heard here where it lookslike in between the coloring of the brick, it seems like they changed the brick.there was some more context actually with the old redder color and now it looks likethe old metal. i think that there's still some work to be done on the design, and i'dencourage dgs and fems to keep working with the community for - i mean to try and swaysome of those concerns. chair bryant: thank you.commissioner griffis: mr. chairman, a quick question. actually while dgs representativeis up here, can i ask you is fems pleased with the design?mr. floca: i think so, yes. they - you know, it's not a traditional fire and ems station,but i say that neither is engine 13 or engine
1. this is - these couple of fire stationshave been a new round of buildings i think, and i think it's a good direction that they- commissioner griffis: engine 13 in southwest. mr. floca: yes, yes.commissioner griffis: great area of the town. i have some familiarity with engine - wellwith fire station designs, so to me i was struck with one of the staff's comments.the architecture actually kind of embodied a gateway, an entrance, to what's happeningto georgia avenue in setting itself apart which it is. i think it does very successfully.i mean i think we can play around with colors and have different opinions, and i would leavethat to the design team to really do it as
they know best, but to me i found this exciting.i think it's dramatic. i think it's - you know, civic architecture has gone throughin my opinion a dull period in the last couple of decades, and now we seem to be reinvigoratingwhat our municipal buildings can be and i think this starts to address that and to showthat we can have these dynamic buildings. this doesn't look outrageously expensive,but it's different and it's not just a brick box and we throw some municipal workers intoit. the other piece that i thought was encouragingjust looking at the plan is fire stations are community places. i mean they're safehavens, and this one has a built-in community room. i thought that was also pretty tremendous,and i think the way it turns the corner, thanks
for doing that, the way it turns the corneri think really relates to what's happening off of georgia avenue and the transition awayfrom the larger density and the larger scale that actually now is going to happen acrossthe street. i think this is tremendous, but that's justme. chair bryant: mr. may. commissioner may: yes, so i will preface myremarks by saying that from an ncpc perspective, i don't think there is any problem with thisproject. i think that the analysis was correct and there's no real reason for ncpc to doanything other than approve the edr for both preliminary and final.that being said, i completely disagree with
the comments in support of this design, andi could go on at length with the things that i think are wrong with it, and some of the- it's similar to what the community has to say, and some of it is just my own opinion,but i think i'll just bite my tongue and - because i'm just, yes, shrug.but again, i don't see any reason why we shouldn't be approving it. it's the district's choice.i wish that some of the choices that the district made in its architecture were better thanthey are, but then again, i'm responsible for some of that during a certain period ofthe district's building when i worked for the predecessor of dgs although i like tothink that we were doing good work then. i just don't - i don't think it's a reallygreat building. i think it's not a really
great building.chair bryant: well, the planning, design, and outreach has been going on for over twoyears now for a firehouse, so lots of people have had input along the way i'm sure.other discussion or comments, questions? commissioner wright: well i'll just land inthe middle. i don't think it's an awful building. i think that it's - there's some nice thingsabout it. it reminds me - i mean i do think there is sort of a new language of civic architecturethat is emerging, and maybe this isn't the - maybe it's not going to win a whole bunchof design awards nor is it going to be something that we're going to regret and want to demolishin ten years, so, you know, it reminds me of some of the better libraries that havebeen built in the district.
i think this is really unfortunate shot. let'sgo back to the other one. yes, that's much better. it does have a better side. maybewe could just look at it from this side. this is an academic conversation, right? you'vebroken ground. you're not going to change it. the program is set. there won't be anyaffordable housing. there won't be - i mean this is a done deal.so i wonder why we're looking at it really and why are we looking at it so late?commissioner may: they're required to bring these projects forward.commissioner wright: i know, but why bother if they've broken ground?commissioner may: well they have a foundation to grade permit not a building permit.commissioner wright: okay.
commissioner may: which is for everythingabove the ground. commissioner wright: yes, so i mean it couldbe a lot worse, and it's not a brick box so that's a good thing. commissioner may: it just looks like a brickbox that had a glass box put on top of it. well, anyway i'm going to stop.chair bryant: well the edr before us, and i'll note that it's not inconsistent withfederal elements and it does not affect federal interests.commissioner wright: exactly, i mean we don't - even if we wanted to which i don't knowthat we can do. i don't think that you can really kick it to the curb on any planningissues.
commissioner may: that was a play of the prefacefor my remarks. commissioner wright: i agree with you.chair bryant: is there - mr. shaw. commissioner shaw: there is a motion.commissioner griffis: second. chair bryant: it's been moved and second semi-enthusiastically.all in favor of the edr say aye. chair bryant: opposed, no. unanimous. thankyou, ms. lee. information presentationsouth mall campus master plan chairman byrant: the last item on our agendais an information presentation from the smithsonian on its south mall campus plan. commissionerrhodes: mr. flis is with us. mr. flis: good afternoon, mr. chairman andmembers of the commission.
the smithsonian institution is here todayto provide an overview of the proposed south mall campus master plan.i'll provide a brief introduction and then turn it over to mr. al horvath, undersecretaryfor finance and administration, with the smithsonian who will begin the presentation. just for some context, the project area islocated along the south side of the national mall between 7th street and 12th street andindependence avenue to the south and jefferson drive to the north.the site is a combination of important historic and cultural facilities which form the centerpieceof the smithsonian institution on approximately 17 acres.i also note that the entire campus falls within
the national mall historic district. as such,the complex of buildings and open spaces have an important physical presence on the nationalmall. this is the existing site plan. independenceavenue is located to the south on the screen, and the national mall is located to the north.i'm going to quickly walk you through the existing site and the various buildings andgardens to provide some context. first and probably most recognizable is thesmithsonian castle. it is the centerpiece of the campus and an icon on the mall. itwas designed by james renwick and built between 1847 and 1855. the building is a national historic landmarkand is currently home to the visitors' center
and administrative offices.next on the west side of the campus we have the freer gallery designed by charles plattand opened in 1923. currently the gallery hosts one of the premium collections of asianart. towards the center of the campus is the artsand industries building which opened in 1881. it too is a national historic landmark andwas the first united states national museum. the building is currently not open to thegeneral public but will be available for special events.on the east side of the campus we have the hirshhorn museum and sculpture garden. themuseum opened in 1974 and the sculpture garden followed later in 1981. the hirshhorn is individuallyeligible for the historic register and is
currently the home of a collection of modernart and works by emerging artists. at the center of the campus is the quadrangleand the haupt gardens which opened in the mid 1980s. this is a three-story undergroundcomplex of museum, auditorium and office space with the haupt garden occupying the roof ofthe complex, and the garden itself is approximately four acres in size.as you can see on the right-hand image, it provides a setting for the castle in the background.the garden is centered on a diamond-shaped 19th century parterre.as part of the quad, the sackler gallery in the national museum of african art are enteredthrough two pavilions which are located there, and you can see those on the right-hand sideof the screen.
finally, there are several other structuresand gardens in the campus. the ripley center pavilion and the folger rose garden are alsolocated on the site, and then finally the mary livingston ripley garden is located betweenthe hirshhorn and the arts and industries building. very quickly moving onto process, currentlyan environmental impact statement is being developed to evaluate the potential impactresulting from the implementation of a campus master plan.the plan intends to guide the future development of the campus over time. ncpc is the leadfederal agency for nepa compliance, and in this case the smithsonian is working withncpc where individual projects under the master
plan require this commission's approval.the eis will provide a full analysis and discuss the potential environment impacts resultingfrom its implementation. in addition, the smithsonian has also initiatedthe section 106, the historic preservation review process, and has held several meetingswith consulting parties to discuss a significant number of historic resources within the campus. to date, comments have focused on severalkey areas including understanding the proposed program, the rationale for and type of seismicprotection proposed for the castle, and the future use of the arts and industries building.in addition, a number of public comments have expressed concern for the potential changeor loss of the existing gardens.
as i mentioned, the smithsonian is here todayto provide an overview and to get the commission's feedback as they continue to move forwardin the process, refine the alternatives, and develop the master plan.the commission is anticipated to review the final master plan sometime in late 2017 orearly 2018. with that, i'm going to turn it over to mr.horvath with the smithsonian institution for their presentation.mr. horvath: thank you. in the interest of time i'm going to compress our normal 1,000-slidepresentation to a much more modest number. let me set the context. back in 2011 at ameeting at the udvar-hazy museum at dulles, a meeting led by then-secretary wayne clough,was put together to look at the next ten,
20, 30 years' worth of capital projects onthe docket for the smithsonian, and as we looked at that plan, we noticed that essentiallyevery building within this south mall campus precinct was in line for some substantialwork during this period of time, and we decided at that point that it made sense to thinkabout this in a more holistic way, both to think about ways to connect this campus moreeffectively and to potentially deal with all of these issues in a more efficient way.what i will cover initially are the reasons and sort of the drivers for the master plan,and then i'll turn it over to my colleague, ann trowbridge who will talk about the statusof the various alternatives that are being considered under the nepa and section 106process.
so as mentioned, the castle is the centerpieceof this precinct. we began this process back in 2012 starting with a lot of programmaticexercises, looking at what was happening in each of the facilities, looking at needs thatwe had either today or expected to have over the course of the next several years, andwe worked to really start from the ground up in terms of things that we needed and howthey could be expressed within the physical construct of this part of the smithsonian.again as mentioned, this is the footprint of the south mall campus, so needs to be addressed. first of all obviously the need to restoreand renovate significant historic buildings starting with the really the heart of thesmithsonian, the castle, the home of my office
which makes me popular with five-year-oldkids. this is our visitors' center. it is the thing that people most associate withthe smithsonian, and it is a building that in the not-too-distant future is going toneed a significant and complete renovation based on the number of mechanical issues thatwe have to deal with and just the general age and condition of the building.also, the building did suffer some not insignificant damage as a result of the earthquake in 2011,and so it really heightened our awareness to the need to think about ways to protectthe building from a seismic point of view. the hirshhorn is one of the many buildingsthat was constructed in the '70s and '80s that are part of our portfolio. those buildingsare now reaching that age which the building
infrastructure and building systems are reachingend of life and will be in need of update and renovation as well.we need to replace roofs and other mechanical systems. as mentioned, the haupt garden isnot only a beautiful and contemplated space, it's also a green roof on top of the ripleycenter. the ripley center is actually larger thanthe arts and industries and castle combined, so there is a significant amount of spacebeneath that garden and the membrane of that roof has already started to fail and willbe in need of replacement and repair. many of the building systems in the facilitiesin this part of the smithsonian are reaching end of life. currently the freer gallery isclosed. as we address those needs, i'm painfully
aware of the state of systems within the castleand as you can see, we have challenges in other parts of the campus.as we think about then replacement and upgrade of those systems, one of the centerpiecesof what we think about from a building point of view these days is sustainability and reducingour energy footprint, and so we look at the opportunity - we look at the challenge ofthese aging systems as an opportunity to upgrade them and to develop a more sustainable planfor providing cooling and heating and electrical service into these buildings. one of the driving forces of thinking aboutthe master plan holistically is the realization that moving around this campus is not simple.really the only way to go effectively and
unimpeded east to west is on jefferson drive,and there aren't always very intuitive signposts that you're at another smithsonian facility,so there are unclear entries, particularly into the underground museums, the sacklergallery and the african art museum. we have accessibility challenges given theage and configuration of the buildings, and right now if you were in the midst of thispart of the smithsonian, there is again no logical way to get from the freer over thehirshhorn without doing this little dance, and one of the challenges or opportunitiesthat we see is to try to create a more cohesive east-west flow and really work on somethingwe've been focused on for the last several years, connecting the smithsonian in moresubstantive ways.
so this is the current view from the hirshhornlooking west at the arts and industries building, and this the potential for the kind of viewthat you might imagine were we to remove that wall.we're looking to accept traffic from the new waterfront development. one of the thingsthat i would point out is that over 70 percent of our visitors come to this part of the smithsonianfrom the mall side. we anticipate that there will be hopefullyincreased traffic coming from the independence side of the campus, and we're looking at waysof being able to welcome those visitors from that part of the campus. but having said that, again, over 70 percentof our visitors come from the mall side. you
can see that the current entrances to thesackler and african art museum are located on the independence side of the haupt garden.the entryways are faced inward to the garden. they're not intuitive and it's one of thechallenges that we find in terms of bringing visitors into those significant galleries.this is the current view of the entryway toward the sackler coming from the smithsonian metrostop. one of my favorite aspects of the south mall campus is the little phone booth entryinto the ripley center. what we would hope to do is to try and movethose entries closer to the mall, taking advantage of the pathway that most of our visitors takeand creating a more visible presence into those facilities.this is a current view to the west walking
in that direction in the haupt garden, andagain, one idea of how opening that up and creating a more unimpeded view of the washingtonmonument would create a more dramatic vista. one of the big needs for the smithsonian programmaticallyis more space for education. education is one of the centerpieces of our mission. itmaybe is not one of those that is most immediately recognized, but we are looking as part ofthis plan to try to expand our footprint for the support of educational programs.we have the ripley education center right now. there is no direct connection from ourmain entryway into the smithsonian, the castle, and through excavation and creating some additionalunderground connections, we see the opportunity to expand visitor amenities to our visitorscoming into the castle for orientation and
other purposes and also creating a directconnection into the education center and taking advantage of that connection by creating sharedinfrastructure. one point i forgot to make, the largest auditoriumthat we have at the smithsonian is the baird auditorium. it's about 500 seats and we arelooking to hopefully be able to put a larger auditorium so that we can host larger events.a number of our larger events we have to rent space off campus to accommodate. obviously we would be looking to enhance ourmuseum and event space through the completion of the master plan.we have some challenges in terms of loading and the like. this is the current conditionof the three loading areas across the campus,
not particularly attractive. they break upagain the east-west flow for visitors going back and forth to our various facilities.one of the big ideas currently under consideration is the creation of a single loading area undergroundbeneath these facilities that would eliminate those disconnections and create a more effectivemethodology of getting material moved throughout. finally one of the other issues that's beingconsidered in the course of this master planning process is security. right now we have anuneven approach to perimeter security, and this will give us the opportunity to thinkabout something more effective and more holistic. so at this point let me turn it over to anntrowbridge who will talk about the current alternatives under consideration.
ms. trowbridge: thank you, al, and good afternoon,chairman bryant and members of the commission. i'm here to talk about master plan alternatives.we're going to go through these quickly, but we could come back and discuss as we go.some of you may have seen some of the renderings of the master plan created by bjarke ingelsgroup. while these were very helpful to us in understanding the connectivity possiblewith the master plan, some of the views and vistas and character of public gallery spaces,they don't represent completed designs by any stretch.they were a testing of the master plan's relationships and program. could we do it in this very constrainedsite and could we meet the program? we have stepped back a little bit to lookat options in more diagrammatic fashion. we
are looking at four build alternatives. wemay add to these. we may modify these as we proceed with the consulting parties and nepaprocess. all of these alternatives recognize that - willbe analyzed for environmental and historic preservation effects.this summarizes the program across the different buildings and within the different alternatives.key here is that the major differences and the alternatives are the extent of undergroundspace created in the vicinity of the castle divided among visitor and education spacesas well as this central utility and loading facilities and differences in whether we expandpublic space underground at the hirshhorn with the primary driver there being the needfor tall gallery space that building does
not have.there are many features common to all alternatives. key to that is restoration. the castle creatingan accessible entry on the east side of the freer and, as al mentioned, the need to completelyreplace the quadrangle building roof. the castle is our heart and soul. we wantto continue to welcome visitors to the castle. it is conveniently positioned near the metro.i will mention we are providing no public parking on our site as part of the masterplan so the orientation of our visitor services to the metro is very key to us.the castle which was never demolished as proposed in the macmillan plan is really well situatedto be that beacon, and it is in many of our opinions our best and most precious buildingand we want people to see it.
that said, walking in is disappointing. avisitor from chicago would not want to take her selfie here, so we want to restore thegreat hall to its full size. it has been crowded with rest rooms and the like, and we wantto declutter a bit by finding better space for our necessary retail activities. we've identified different parts of the castlefor different preservation treatments. they're preservation zones like the regent's roomand the crypt. there are restoration zones where we'd like to take out some modern introductionsand go back to the period of significance. here you see the children's room which isthe south tower entrance from the garden. we also have areas we're defining as rehabilitationzones. these are behind the scenes and interstitial
places.most importantly our basement is atrocious. many of you who are taller could not walkdown the hall here without bumping your head. we have a furniture workshop and castle furnishingscollection housed in the basement and it is in very poor space. we want to make that better.here we show the invasive partitions that create the needed restrooms and orientationsthat are needed now used for the shop and the cafã© serving area. removing these allows us to increase the greathall back to its original 10,000 square-foot size. we want to use this to tell the storyof the smithsonian to visitors to help them plan their visit, to tell them a little bitabout smithsonian activities off the mall.
we have something like 1500 phds at the smithsoniandoing all kinds of interesting research. we want to have a place where we share that.all of our alternatives include restoration of the exterior envelope. as al mentioned,the earthquake gave us a head start on that, a surprising head start.at the freer gallery, all of our alternatives include an accessible entry at the level belowthe galleries through extending an existing window opening to create a doorway.the arts and industries building we will continue to support interim uses such as the installationof our secretary last fall, but we will also provide the support for future permanent museumuse by providing the loading and mechanical spaces to serve this.
we'd like to do that by not using above-gradeloading as currently provided but below grade, and we'd like to do that with mechanical systemsthat are not housed inside the upper levels of this machine for daylight, but insteadin a new underground space. we want - whatever our permanent use is wewant to embody this east-west circulation path that's part of the planning for that.the quadrangle building as we said will require the roof replacement. the wonderful gardenswill be replanted and pavement reintroduced. we hope to be able to expand the garden ifwe're able to relocate the sackler loading dock. this would allow more space for specialevents such as our annual may gardenfest that you see pictured here.it would be nice if our presenters didn't
have to stand in the grass and if we couldsimultaneously have events as well as circulation to the castle. the hirshhorn museum and all alternativeswe continue to repair and replace building systems, and the folger and ripley gardensremain with some changes to accommodate the circulation changes in each alternative.here is that parking lot we'd like to remove and allow the ripley garden which is to yourright to expand into. alternative a has the least amount of aboveand below-grade change. at the ground floor, the primary thing at grade that you wouldsee outdoors would be the freer gallery entry. below grade we work within the castle basementfootprint. all of our alternatives lower that
floor level to allow for proper head heightand utility service. this alternative falls quite short of meetingour program by approximately 150,000 square feet in the area of the castle because itdoesn't allow the central loading, central plant, and does not provide the additionaleducation spaces or the expanded visit - as much expanded visitor space as we'd like tohave. you can see also that this alternative doesnot have the connectivity for the public with the quadrangle building and its educationspaces. alternative b also embodies limited above-gradechange, but it does a little bit more underground, most importantly it includes the centralizedloading and it includes a central utility
plant that only serves aib and the castle,and it would be located to the south of the castle in an unexcavated area between thetwo buildings. other buildings would remain on gsa steamand chilled water which for us is much more costly, more greenhouse gas emissions andless energy efficient. this allows the through circulation to thehirshhorn because we've removed that parking lot and service access at grade. it allowsthe expansion of the haupt garden at the current sackler loading dock just east of freer gallery. it requires the removal of the current ripleyentry pavilion and its replacement in the garden area. you can see it retains all thoseother garden structures for mechanical and
exit stairs and the two museum entry pavilions.under grade to the left in the blue area is the added sublevel, partial sublevel, forthe service and to the right is that in-fill of the underground space for mechanical.this improves our connectivity for loading especially needed if we have more food servicewhich we desperately need in this part of our campus. it doesn't go as far in connectingpedestrians - visitors with the education spaces.alternative c which we've titled maintaining the flat plain with the changes above andbelow grade includes a - the new entry pavilions that we'd like to create closer to the mall.it demolishes the three current entry pavilions. it houses the central plant and the loadingdock in a full sub-basement below the castle
basement which is also expanded. here in the section you can see that it providesimproved connectivity with the quadrangle museums and expanded education, new pavilionscloser to the mall. it does not provide as much daylight down into the expanded castlebasement and quad as we would like to do. alternative d goes further in providing aslightly larger sublevel and expanded basement that fully meets the program requirement.it introduces more daylight. as you can see here, it provides for the loadingand central plant the connectivity to the hirshhorn and also includes several additionalinterventions at the hirshhorn. we have looked at but not made any designdecisions about opening up the hirshhorn walls
a bit to be more friendly in addition to allowingthe east-west circulation. this proposal includes raising the east andwest sides of the sculpture garden to allow construction of galleries below. the centerpart of the sculpture garden stays at its current level, and the roof of the upper sculpturegarden is several feet below the mall. underground, we envision needing to widenthe public connection under jefferson. there was a tunnel originally constructed. it stillexists. it's been in-filled that goes between the sculpture garden and comes up out at theplaza just north of the donut. that could be re-instituted as part of schemesb and c if we did not do this other more extensive renovation where we create an additional publicentrance at the central plaza.
as you can see in this section, section dincludes an at-grade entry into the expanded visitors' center. we like this because ofthe connectivity to the garden in daylight, the greater capacity for welcoming visitors,and the greater clarity for way-finding that this provides.as you can see, this has very good connectivity between the museums, the education spaces,and the visitors' services. with that, i'd like to conclude our presentation,and we are here with our full team to address questions you may have. chair bryant: thank you. i have a few questionsor comments. in the past, it is my understanding you'vegiven some consideration to incorporating
seismic strategies into a particular approach,but i don't think you've mentioned that. is that now not a consideration or a less consideration?ms. trowbridge: we definitely will be incorporating seismic solutions for the castle. it is requiredby the international building code to bring a building such as this when you do a majorrenovation, this is what they refer to an unreinforced masonry building. we have tobring it up to code. we also have to meet a new executive orderrequiring better resiliency for federal buildings against earthquakes. we have really in - thatjust came out recently. we were ahead of the curve on that. we have - we are looking at two methodologies.one is traditional seismic reinforcement.
that can be very invasive with lots of tiebars or poured concrete walls. we're not sure it's the best solution for us, and it mayreduce some of the areas for circulation in the towers and affect historic rooms likethe regent's room because our worst seismic conditions are in these perimeter areas. that'swhere the greatest weakness is. we are also exploring a methodology that'sused on the west coast for many of their most precious historic systems, the city hall insan francisco, la, the utah capital, pasadena city hall, and we've had one of the leadingearthquake engineers advise our structural team on this, and they've suggested we considerthe approach of base isolation. what this does is it creates a zone aroundthe building. it can be very well disguised
in the landscape which is sort of a crumplezone one would call it, so that when those forces of the earthquake come that this areatakes that hit such that your building has less force acting upon it, therefore, lessintervention is required within it and more of that historic fabric is retained than intraditional seismic reinforcement. as we proceed with design of the castle, wewill continue to further investigate these two alternatives and which is better for us.we talked to the shpo in california. they said, wow, what a great opportunity to sharethis technology with people on the mall, so we're continuing to look at options.chair bryant: one more question than a comment. the question is some years ago we opined asa commission the appropriateness positively
of the american latino museum going at a&i.can you tell us that status of the a&i museum building might be considered for what is theamerican latino museum or another space. ms. trowbridge: those require act of congress.when we started this master plan there was a bill before congress that required us todo a feasibility study within 18 months to see if aib was a workable site.we expected that to occur and to have two teams working side by side and feeding information.that hasn't occurred, but we've allowed for it to happen in the potential size of ourmechanical system that we could provide in the loading in other ways.we also could have a - that use is a kind of maximum square foot use. there could beanother permanent museum use that has less
square footage requirements. chair bryant: then my comment is somethingof this magnitude, you've given us a good glimpse as to what some of your programmaticneeds are just as we did with the kennedy center and its expansion. we did sort of adate dive on their staff level and their programmatic needs to make sure that we properly understoodthem, so as this goes forward, i'm sure we would appreciate, staff would appreciate,a really deep dive on your programmatic needs to make sure we understand them so that wecan best collaborate with you. ms. trowbridge: yes, at a master plan level,my former boss, denise scott brown, used to say you need to fit the program in the masterplan like a mitten rather than a glove because
your master plan is for a 20-year period.our first step as we move forward with detailed studies of the castle will be to develop avery detailed program, and as part of the castle project review, we would share withyou as it develops. we do not want to build square feet we don'tneed and can't afford to maintain, but we do have needs.chair bryant: thank you. ms. trowbridge: thank you.chair bryant: other questions? ms. wright. commissioner wright: so gsa is a consultingparty, and so i know probably more than some of you who haven't seen any of the presentationyet, and i remain frustrated as do many of the consulting parties i think at the lackof programmatic information, and so especially
when you're talking about doing some prettydramatic digging and putting - i think the number i remember is something like 350,000square feet under the ground. is that still valid?ms. trowbridge: let me go back to - commissioner wright: the slides were so jammedthat we didn't - ms. trowbridge: are you talking about thecastle plus the central utility plant? commissioner wright: i'm talking - yes, canwe see - ms. trowbridge: i think it's less than that,but - commissioner wright: well when we first sawthe model and all that, i mean there's a lot to like in this, but i'm worried about howthe story is unfolding, and the absence of
a plan for the arts and industries buildingmakes it really hard. to have it reduced to a circulation building in this discussionis disappointing. i find it difficult to get my arms aroundthe program - i mean with the absence of a programmatic urgency or detail, the urgencyabout the seismic upgrade in terms of base isolation and then the lack of informationabout what might happen with the arts and industries building makes it really hard tothink about all of the alternatives because the pieces aren't put together yet.the big plan is gorgeous and the renderings are beautiful, and it's very inspiring inlots of ways, but it's really hard to come to any sort of sensible opinion about it yetbecause these big chunks of information are
missing.mr. horvath: the reason why we're going the master plan along the timeline that we areis to try to gather as much information to fill those gaps in as possible. we're tryingto be as deliberate as possible, get as much input as possible, and see if some of thosevariables get fixed along the way. the master plan is designed to be both aspirationalas well as to give us some sense of what we could do optimally or maximally on this footprint.so there's uncertainty about the long-term program for arts and industries, but we'velooked both at using the building as it currently exists and in thinking about ways that wecould then program it as well as looking at a maximum footprint that could go there ifyou were to cite the museum that needed much
more square footage.so i think the way to look at this master plan is a way for us to think about thesevery important facilities in a very important part of this city and this country and lookingat alternatives as some of these uncertainties become more certain.i think the other thing that we can absolutely do based on the chairman's question and yourcomment, we can come back and talk a bit more about the programmatic drivers at a lowerlevel of detail. we aren't just looking at this as a way tocreate more space. we're looking at this in a way to create more space to accommodateneeds that currently are being undersupported. commissioner wright: can you use the masterplan and all of the resources you're putting
into it to drive the decision? who makes thedecision about aib? it's been mothballed for a good amount oftime now, and how can you - with that big hole in the campus, how can you move aheadand make responsible decisions? mr. horvath: congress decides on new nationalmuseums, and they have not yet acted on that museum that was potentially cited to go intothat space. what we're doing in the interim is we putsome modest amount of infrastructure into the inside of the building. all of the beautyon the outside was really focused on the outside of the building. what we've now been able to do is to allowthe building to accept special events and
periodic temporary programming. we hope todo some more longer-term things to get the public into the building and to take advantageof that asset which has been offline since 2004.i mean we desperately want more and more people to be able to come in and take advantage ofthat, and frankly, there's been a lot of positive response to that.we're hopeful that some of our programs can begin to use that space in very creative wayswhile the bigger questions continue to get thought about and ultimately determined.commissioner wright: okay. i have one more set of questions, and this is about the seismicupgrade because again, i've been in the consulting party meetings, and i don't think that thecase has yet been made.
it feels like an uzi that killed a field mouseso far in the base isolation approach. ms. trowbridge: well if you think preventingthe historic fabric of the castle from being lost forever in an earthquake is killing fieldmice, you can, but we do not. we are willing to invest in a more comprehensive solutionto protect that in the very best way. commissioner wright: i understand that. i'msaying that in the context of the consultation that case has not yet been made, and i wouldurge you to make it because i get that it's at risk, but there remain a number of questionsabout the extent of the damage in 2011 and i think everyone who is in the consultingprocess would feel better if that were a story that were told in a more fulsome way.ms. trowbridge: we are - as we develop our
structural design for the castle and lookat alternatives in detail, we will share them with you. we may not get there in the masterplan level. i don't think most master plans have seismic solutions for specific buildingsas part of the master plan. however, the traditional method of - we willlook at its lower cost that's attracted to us, however, we're concerned that it may bemore invasive on our historic fabric. commissioner wright: invasive, yes, i agree.i just think that - i think it does belong in the master plan actually. if there is animpulse to go for the base isolation technique, it's a considerable investment.i'm not saying that i don't - that oppose it. i'm simply saying that i think that aslong as it has been introduced into the conversation
at the master plan level, it needs to be morefully explored. ms. trowbridge: we are doing that. we arecurrently in the process of executing a contractor to do a laser scan of the castle so we cando better modeling of structure, but some of that will come as part of the castle projectrather than the master plan, but as we learn things, we will update the commission andthe consulting parties, if not for the master plan, for the castle project itself whichwill have its own section 106 process with - addressing issues that require that higherlevel of design to really weigh the effects of.commissioner wright: thank you. chair bryant: mr. may.commissioner may: so i have a few comments.
i don't think they're really questions somuch as concerns that i would note at this stage of the process.first of all, like gsa, the park service is intimately involved in all the discussionsassociated with this project. we're a consulting party. we're also a cooperating agency onthe eis because our land could be affected and could be required for some of the constructionhere, so we would have to sign off our own need for compliance. we'd have to sign a fonsito do some of the actions that might be called for, and we're also involved because thisis a national historic landmark, and the national park service has a special consulting processrelated to nhls. i think that overall in terms of the broadprogrammatic objectives, i think most of the
programmatic objectives generally speakingthat i understand are pretty sensible. i mean improving the loading circumstance and reducingthe number of loading ramps and recovering ground space as a result, doing some connectionacross the campus underground, there's some sensibility to that.doing an east-west connection at the ground level i think is very sensible. i mean that'sa direct improvement for pedestrians and visitors, and we have a common base of visitors, sowe want it easy for them to get around. i also see the opportunity for north-southconnections being improved and just on a very personal note, i would love to be able toride my bicycle across that campus because it's directly between ncpc and my office.ms. trowbridge: i think if we're able to get
rid of that parking lot at aib that wouldbe a perfect - commissioner may: that would be great.ms. trowbridge: spot for peter may's bicycle shortcut.commissioner may: okay. thank you, but it's not really about me, it's about the entirecycling community. ms. trowbridge: it will be our shortcut forgetting to meetings with al. commissioner may: well, no, but i think it'shighly useful. i mean if i struggle with that, i think other people would benefit as well,but anyway, enough of that. i think that i have a couple of more seriousconcerns about this. one is the thing that i still find puzzling in how you're conductingthe eis which is that i don't understand how
alternatives that add - an alternative thatadds 10,000 square feet could be - that could meet the purpose and need but you also havean alternative that adds 280,000 square feet meeting the purpose and need. it's a verystrange sort of thing. i think - i understand the mitten and gloveconcept, but, you know, we're talking about a glove versus a giant sack or something.it's not a mitten, so it's a very difficult thing to kind of wrap our heads around.i understand that you may wind up eliminating alternatives because they simply do not meetpurpose and need, but i think that it would be productive to understand better what purposeand need is as it relates to the program and having a reasonable range of space that'sdriven by programs as ms. wright has stated
i think actually would be very helpful tounderstand how this can work in the process of making a nepa decision.and again remember, we have to sign off on nepa decisions. ms. trowbridge: right, right. in developingalternatives, we added a which is one that doesn't really meet our program needs at therequest of the d.c. historic preservation office. we're not sure if that one will survivethe process, but we are carrying it forward through the nepa and 106 until the right decisionpoint about that alternative. i think alternatives for the hirshhorn arethe last to be realized and, therefore, that building is somewhat separated from otherelements of the castle and the quadrangle
which really has to be considered togetherin design. we believe that it's a good idea to buildthose additional gallery spaces in d, but whether we do that or don't do that does notimpact the alternative that would be created around the castle and quad.so our master plan is a bit about program and accommodating program such as the - halfof that space that the castle underground is for the central plan and the central loading.the other half is education and visitor services and the spaces to support that. it really is the critical thing to have thosecentralized services and visitor education spaces at the castle.commissioner may: okay, so and i think that
that really strikes at the core of the question.i mean just to back up slightly before coming back to that, when we're talking about addingspace at hirshhorn and, you know, underground space in the proximity of the sculpture gardenand things like that, i don't think that's really very troubling. that's understandableand is sort of discreet and separate, but i think that the notion of constructing alot of underground space underneath the castle in essence is highly problematic.i don't have an issue with base isolation. i mean i think some people are concerned aboutthat, but i know what the success stories have been in base isolation, and i understandthe technical approach, and i think that can be done effectively.
the issue is that once you have - it seemsto be that once you're doing the base isolation, you're using that as a rationale to buildlots of structure underneath that. i think that's where it does get a lot morecomplicated and certainly from an nhl perspective, that's one of the park service's greatestconcerns and it's certainly one of the biggest concerns that comes out the consulting partydiscussions, and i think that that's going to be the biggest - that's the biggest thingto understand. it also goes to program. i understand theidea of why you want to have certain visitor services that are in close proximity of thecastle. i don't know if they need to be in the castle or in front of the castle, underground,or whether there are other spaces.
i mean you said, as i understand it, the existingunderground space includes office spaces and such. i don't know how much of that is movable,relocatable. that's the sort of thing that i think we want to understand in the furtheranalysis of the program because, believe me, the last thing you want to do is build spaceunderground that doesn't need to be underground absolutely and certainly because we were justtalking about the trials of having underground buildings.you know that yourself from the underground building you already have and how long hasit been there? twenty-five years maybe? ms. trowbridge: about 30 years. commissioner may: about 30 years, so in the'80s it was finished, so that - i mean 30
years - to have to come back 30 years laterand remove a feature like the haupt garden which many people love and many people arecoming to consulting party meetings to talk about how much they love it the way it is,to have to remove that entirely to fix the roof. you know whatever you do with this newproject, you're going to be - you're at risk to do those sorts of things again becauseit's very difficult to build underground buildings and not have to do future maintenance on them.that is very, very disruptive. so i just - it's causing great anxiety throughouteverybody, and, you know, we spend a lot of time together at gsa, you know, the commissionof fine arts, ncpc staff, at a lot of meetings, and i think that if we put this on this anxietyspectrum of all the things that we're dealing
with, this is just way up at the top.commissioner wright: i think that's fair too, and that's what i was getting at. there'sa lot of anxiety that i think can be, you know, treated not through pharmaceuticalsbut rather through just getting answers to questions, and in the context of a cp meetingwhich, you know - and we talked about this - it can go so wrong so fast when - and thenmomentum builds around the anxiety instead of around the issues.that's what i was - i'm not - when i said the field mouse and uzi thing, it's not about- i think it's in the absence of understanding the (a) damage, and (b) the threat of anotherearthquake. i did work on the restoration of la city hallfor a bit, so i'm also pretty comfortable
with the base isolation. it's - i think youwere much more eloquent that i as usual. it's about the size of this big hole under thecastle and how it will be approached and the first step is demonstrating through the programthis need to do that. i think that would quell a lot of the anxiety.ms. trowbridge: well we can show you - half of the need is the loading and utility - wecan show you a layout of the loading dock which each recycling and truck length andturning distance. we have done that level of study.we're currently working with ddot about the curb cut and how to handle that from a citystreet standpoint. similarly, the bjarke ingels group workingwith the mechanical firm ght and atelier ten
sustainability firm has detailed specificrenewable sources and types of equipment and how much space you need to handle this levelof square footage in an expanded program and potential iab use.we have done our homework on those items. we can share that homework with consultingparties. i don't know to what extent they're going to suggest different air handler ofsomething, but we're welcome to share that. that is half of that program, and it is prettydetailed at this point. the visitor and education space, we are not providing any extra officesthat do not have - in that program that do not have to be right there near the visitors.the people who run the smithsonian associates programs, the special events, our visitorservices, our volunteers and docents. we have
tons of volunteers. we don't have a volunteerspace now at the castle. those people need to be there. however, we are currently involved in consolidatingadministrative office spaces that occupy what was the upper great hall on two interstitiallevels as well as bits of - above the ends of the great hall and the east wing. we aregoing to downsize the office space to only be in the east wing and relocate all of thoseother offices to an off-site location which we're working on addressing now. that willalso be where everybody comes out the castle in 2021 or so for the renovation project.chair bryant: one more quick question. are the gardens considered historic?ms. trowbridge: none of the gardens have been
identified specifically as historic. the hauptgarden is the rooftop of the quadrangle building, and we are currently in process of a studyto determine the eligibility of the quadrangle building for listing - individual listingon the nation register. the new mall nomination form will includeeverything on our campus, all of our buildings as contributing to the national mall historicdistrict. chair bryant: peter, mr. may.commissioner may: so i just want to add, when it comes to the program certainly having specificinformation about sizes of things and how many trucks and all those sorts of things,but i think that there is this trade off that you have to do between what's necessary toprotect the nhl versus how many - how carefully
you have to manage your loading docks or evenquestions like when it comes to the energy efficiency of your mechanical systems and,you know, okay, maybe you don't want to keep buying gsa steam and chilled water, but maybethat's the only alternative. i mean the national park service could savea whole lot of money if we started popping out solar panels everywhere on the lands thatwe control, but we don't do that because we know it's not the right thing to do with thoselandscapes, so - and we're very, very careful. we deploy those things when we can, but whenwe can't, we're essentially a preservation organization. the smithsonian is a preservationorganization, and i think that's one of the ways that you should be looking at this.you may have to make those kinds of trade-offs
in the end.mr. horvath: yes, i feel very strongly that in the course of renovating these spaces thatwe be as focused on sustainability as possible, and we might politely disagree on some ofthat, but i think we are going to push as hard as we can to be as efficient as we canto reduce our energy footprint and to do everything possible to manage this as responsibly aspossible. i take your point, but it's a very, very importantcomponent. commissioner may: as it is for us. we're also- we're shrinking our footprint left and right in order to reduce the amount of energy thatwe need in the first place. mr. horvath: understood.
commissioner may: and those are things thati'm sure that you're conscious of as well. mr. horvath: but i just want to emphasizethat i'm - i'd push on that very, very aggressively. commissioner may: right.mr. horvath: as much as possible. commissioner wright: could i make one moreplea just that you use this master plan as leverage to get a decision about aib. it justseems a shame for it to be sitting there so underutilized and it's so beautiful and you'regoing to spend a bucket of money on the master plan and without its fate being known, itfeels vaguely, and this is not about smithsonian because i understand people at a differentpay grade are making this decision, but it feels vaguely negligent almost to let it sitthere and be - comprise such a big piece of
the puzzle and have all these other decisionsthat should cascade from that one be made without it. mr. horvath: i appreciate that point, butlet me turn it around a little bit. the work that's been done on aib to make it look sobeautiful, again, was to restore and secure the shell, the roof, and the windows.there were two subsequent projects that were planned, not yet executed. one is the developmentof a building infrastructure which needs to be redone, and then ultimately the finishwork within that building. those are two very significant projects.what we've done in the interim is put a very modest amount of money into the shell - intothe interior to allow the building to once
again be used. i think we're just at the beginningof that, and we're just reopening the building and accepting events and other programs andhopefully it will begin to generate interest, excitement, and other kinds of programmingthat will allow the public to come in right now while the other broader, longer-term decisionare made, so i think in the interim we're trying toutilize the building, get the building back online, take advantage of what it presentsto us because it is a fabulous, fabulous space, and ultimately there will be a decision madeon long-term approach and then there will be a significant investment that will needto be made at that point. so we take your point. i mean that has beena big passion of mine to get the doors of
that building open again and not have thesign constantly be building closed. it's not a position we want to be in long term, andi think we're now at the point where there's going to be life milling around the insideof that building moving forward. chair bryant: anything else? ms. trowbridge,mr. horvath, thank you very much. ms. trowbridge: thank you very much, chairmanbryant. mr. horvath: thank you.chair bryant: we look forward to lots more discussions. thanks so much. is there anything else to come before thecommission? hearing none, after a full day, thank you. we are adjourned. the commissionwill rise.
No comments:
Post a Comment