The meeting was convened at 401 F Street NW, Room 311, at 9:00 a.m.
Members present:
Hon. Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., Chairman
Hon. James C. McCrery II
Hon. Chamberlain Harris
Hon. Pamela Hughes Patenaude
Hon. Matthew Taylor
Staff present:
Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Christopher Berger
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 19 March meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the March 2026 meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Ms. Patenaude with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the minutes.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings: 21 May, 18 June, and 16 July 2026. He said these dates are consistent with the calendar published at the beginning of the year, and that no action is required.
C. Announcement of Historic Preservation Specialist staff position posting. Secretary Luebke announced that the Commission has an active posting for a Historic Preservation Specialist to support the Old Georgetown Act jurisdiction. He said the Commission processes roughly three to four hundred cases per year under that jurisdiction, representing a substantial caseload. He said that interested applicants should refer to the posting on USAJobs.gov, and that the posting is scheduled to close on 22 April 2026. He said he hopes to conclude the hiring process during the summer as part of an effort to augment the staff following changes over the past year.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of each document were circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting.
Appendix I – Government Submissions (Consent Calendar): Mr. Hart said the consent calendar includes forty items. He said one item was added since the draft was circulated: a proposal to install small barriers to protect underground infrastructure at the Thompson Boathouse near Georgetown. He also noted the delegated final approval by the staff of two projects submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services: additions to Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School and to John Burroughs Elementary School. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes seventeen items. She said that the recommendation for one case (SL 26-072) was changed to no objection following revisions by the applicant, and that minor wording changes and supplemental materials were incorporated into the final appendix. She noted that staff is also waiting for supplemental materials for eight cases and expects to continue working with the applicants to resolve minor issues. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission approved the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Berger said the appendix includes twenty-six items. He said that aside from the addition of material-receipt dates and minor wording revisions, there were no changes to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
B. Department of the Interior / Executive Office of the President
CFA 16/APR/26-1, Memorial Circle, George Washington Memorial Parkway. New monumental arch. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design, submitted by the Department of the Interior in cooperation with the Executive Office of the President, for a new monumental arch on Memorial Circle at the intersection of George Washington Memorial Parkway and the axis of Memorial Bridge at Memorial Avenue, which forms the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery. He said the proposed location lies roughly halfway between the Lincoln Memorial and the Hemicycle in Arlington, which now houses the Women in Military Service for America Memorial; the arch would add another significant monumental feature to the honorific landscape of the national capital.
Mr. Luebke said the proposed arch, loosely modeled on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, would be 166’ tall and 81’ deep, and would be topped with a grouping of statues sitting on low pyramidal bases comprising another 84’, bringing the overall proposed height of the ensemble to 250’. The central opening would be 110’ wide and 55’ tall and would frame the axis of Memorial Bridge and Memorial Avenue when seen from a short distance. He said that unlike many temporary triumphal arches erected in the United States, this arch is intended to be a permanent structure clad in stone. Public access to the site is proposed; the interior would include visitor amenities, a large program space at the level of the entablature, and access to an observation deck at the top of the arch. Because the site is an active traffic circle, access is somewhat constrained: a drop-off is proposed on the west side of the circle, and a pedestrian tunnel would connect the site to a walkway leading westward toward Arlington Cemetery and the associated Metrorail station. He asked Hon. Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior, to provide introductory remarks on behalf of the project.
Secretary Burgum thanked the Commission for its service and said he is honored to present for the public record the initial design submission for what he introduced as the United States Triumphal Arch. He said that for well over one hundred years, Congress and various statutory commissions have intended for a monumental work to adorn the west approach of Memorial Bridge, which spans the Potomac from the Lincoln Memorial to Columbia Island, a parcel of federal parkland defined by the Potomac River on one side and the Boundary Channel on the other. He said various monumental designs have been contemplated for this site over the years, most notably twin 166’-tall memorial columns proposed more than one hundred years ago; however, despite the original intent for Columbia Island to include a monument, the site remains a barren, flat, grass-covered traffic circle known as Memorial Circle. He said this condition directly contradicts the original vision for Columbia Island to be the site for a beautiful architectural adornment providing a suitable entrance to both Arlington National Cemetery and Washington, D.C.
Secretary Burgum said that Congress created the McMillan Commission in 1901 to develop plans for the improvement of the entire park system of the District of Columbia, and that the resulting McMillan Plan first called for establishing a corridor suited to contain a memorial at the western terminus of Memorial Bridge. As Congress began implementing the plan’s key features, including the Lincoln Memorial, it created the Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission in 1913 to develop designs for the new bridge. He said the Memorial Bridge Commission’s 1924 report called for “a plaza with fitting architectural adornment in a measure supplemental to the Lincoln Memorial across the river,” proposing two stately columns on Columbia Island—one symbolizing the north and the other the south—each one 166’ tall and surmounted by statues of victory. He said Congress subsequently called for the construction of a monumental corridor from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington Cemetery, expressly ratifying the Bridge Commission’s proposal, with the Columbia Island plaza as an essential component. He said that Charles Moore, former clerk to the McMillan Commission and longtime member of the Commission of Fine Arts (member, 1910–1940; chairman, 1915–1937), urged that Columbia Island “not be suffered to fall from its intended high estate into a mere thoroughfare” and that “the center of the island is to be treated in a monumental fashion.”
Secretary Burgum said that while Memorial Bridge was completed in 1931, funding fell short due to the Great Depression, and the Columbia Island plans were never realized. He said that Ulysses S. Grant III, then a member of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission [later renamed the National Capital Planning Commission], decried the condition of Columbia Island as early as the 1940s, lamenting that the central plaza had never been undertaken and calling it essential to linking the bridge and the entrance to Arlington Cemetery. He said President Trump believes that the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of American independence is the appropriate moment to finally realize this longstanding vision. He said the proposed Triumphal Arch builds upon the original 1924 proposal: it would stand 166’ tall and would be topped by a figure of Winged Liberty, with the overall structure reaching 250’ from the ground to the top of the statue. He said such an arch would be a fitting terminus for Memorial Bridge, an important feature on Columbia Island, and a ceremonial gateway into Arlington National Cemetery. He said that monumental arches have been used since antiquity to beautify cities and celebrate national accomplishments, noting examples including a temporary arch erected in Washington following World War I and the temporary Washington Square Arch in New York City, which was later reconstructed to be permanent; he said that Washington is the only major Western capital without a monumental arch. He said the United States Triumphal Arch would enrich the city’s historic fabric and be a project of which all Americans could be proud.
Chairman Cook thanked Secretary Burgum for his attendance and asked architect Nicolas Charbonneau, lead designer and principal with the architectural firm Harrison Design, to present the concept design.
Mr. Charbonneau said the Memorial Avenue corridor was designed by the noted firm McKim, Mead & White with the intent of creating a monumental axis between the Lincoln Memorial to the east and Arlington House to the west. He said all architectural, sculptural, and landscape features of the corridor were important elements in the Neoclassical design of the national capital as envisioned by the McMillan Plan. Mr. Charbonneau said the arch would serve as an enduring, grand, and noble gateway into the city, framing reciprocal views between Arlington House and the Lincoln Memorial. He said the arch would be constructed on an elevated platform seven feet above the existing grade. Broad steps would be located on the east and west sides of the raised platform, with a sloped accessible path on the southwest side of the west stairway. An accessible underground passage from the southwest side of the circle would pass under the roadway and emerge on the north side at the elevated platform. He said no changes are proposed to the surrounding roadways, and that construction would be contained within the grass area inside the 300’-diameter circle, except as required for accessibility compliance.
Mr. Charbonneau said the design employs a proportional system that contributes to its beauty and harmony: the main body of the arch would be as tall as it is wide; the height of the crowning statue would be one-half of the overall height; the height of the central arch opening would be two-thirds of the overall height; and its width would be one-third. He presented the east-facing elevation, commenting that the Classical architectural elements seek to harmonize with the surrounding monuments of Washington and Arlington National Cemetery. The overall height from the base to the top of the central statue would be 250’, a symbolic reference to the semiquincentennial of the nation’s founding. He said the original McKim, Mead & White proposal, inspired by the July Column in Paris, called for two 166’ columns surmounted by statues of Victory. The current design honors that precedent with a unified arch, also 166’ tall, surmounted by a 60’ statue of a Winged Lady Liberty on a pedestal. He said the uppermost portion of the arch, just below the statue, would be accessible to visitors and would offer panoramic views.
Mr. Charbonneau said the attic story would feature the inscription “One Nation Under God” on its east face and “Liberty and Justice for All” on the west. The central arch opening would be 110’ tall and would feature bas-relief sculpture of allegorical figures within the spandrel panels. Each face of the arch would also feature recessed panels intended for future sculpture whose subjects are still being determined. He said the raised platform would be flanked by statues of recumbent lions on pedestals, recalling McKim, Mead & White’s original intent to place lion sculptures at the Watergate steps on the west side of the Lincoln Memorial. At the ground level, a series of bollards would ring the platform to protect visitors from surrounding traffic. He said the side elevations, facing north and south, would be identical to each other and would also feature recessed rectangular panels for sculpture.
Mr. Charbonneau presented diagrammatic floor plans, noting that visitors would enter and ascend by stairs or elevator to an upper-level mezzanine; additional stairs and an elevator would ascend from there into the base beneath the statues and provide access to the viewing deck at the roof level. He presented a longitudinal section illustrating the vertical circulation and structural components: the structure and surrounding platform would be constructed on a mat foundation supported by driven piles; the exterior wall assembly would consist of cast-in-place concrete clad in stone; and the upper floor and roof structures would be composite wood decking supported by steel joists.
Mr. Charbonneau said exterior materials have not yet been finalized, but those under consideration include limestone, granite, and marble. The statues and other features might be a silicon-bronze alloy finished with gold, similar to the Arts of War and Peace statues at the east end of Memorial Bridge. He concluded with several views showing the proposed arch in relation to the existing pylons at the entrance of Arlington National Cemetery, noting that the arch would provide a grand expression of entrance into the District of Columbia and frame views along Memorial Bridge toward the Lincoln Memorial.
Mr. Cook asked Mr. Charbonneau to elaborate on the foundation system, noting that Columbia Island presents challenging soil conditions and that the weight of the structure will be a significant consideration. Mr. Charbonneau said Columbia Island was created by the spoils of dredging the Potomac, and that the soil conditions are not favorable for a traditional foundation. He said preliminary calculations have indicated piles spaced roughly five feet on center supporting a thick concrete mat foundation would be required beneath the structure. Mr. Cook recommended that the design team consult with an expert on these structural matters, as that expertise would be of significant assistance.
Mr. Cook said he regards the arch primarily as a ceremonial entrance into Arlington National Cemetery, and he asked whether a view from the top of Memorial Bridge looking west, and from the Lincoln Memorial platform looking west, had been prepared. Mr. Charbonneau responded that those views have not been presented but that they can be provided. Mr. Cook emphasized that these views are needed, including a study of whether a School of Athens-type framed axial view, with the arch opening revealing Arlington House, would be achievable from the appropriate vantage points. Mr. Charbonneau said that from the Hemicycle looking east through the arch opening, the Lincoln Memorial will more or less fill the frame; from Arlington House looking east, the Lincoln Memorial is horizontally wider than the arch opening, so some portions to the left and right will not be visible.
Mr. Cook said he gets emotional every time he visits the Lincoln Memorial and reads the inscriptions within; however, he is also extremely dedicated to Confederate General Robert E. Lee, having gone to a university that is named after the general and where he is buried, and he noted that the land that now constitutes Arlington National Cemetery and Arlington House was taken from Lee by the nation. Therefore, the honorific axis connecting the Lincoln Memorial and the land associated with Robert E. Lee’s former property must continue to be legible, as it represents the binding of the nation’s wounds after the Civil War. He emphasized that preserving the visual connection between these two landmarks is paramount to the design concept. Mr. Charbonneau said that the size of the central opening was determined specifically to respect that view, using the arch as a framing device rather than a visual obstruction, and that the arch would achieve what the original paired columns proposed to represent.
Mr. Cook said he works within a monumental arch every day; he observed that the proposed one would be much bigger than his, and that its large size would offer the opportunity to present interesting things within. He asked if the President had told Mr. Charbonneau what he would like to put in the arch; Mr. Charbonneau responded that he had not discussed the interior program with the President. Mr. Cook said that the great arches of the world all have interesting interior programs, and that this information should be passed along to the President. He cited his own proposals in the early 2000s to construct several arches in Washington, including one on this very site.
Mr. McCrery asked about the height of the platform on which the arch would sit; Mr. Charbonneau confirmed it would be 7’ above the surrounding grade and would be reached by fourteen steps on the east and west, with sloped accessible paths rather than formal ramps on the south side. Mr. McCrery recommended that landings be included on these long sloped paths. He then asked about the decision to route pedestrian access underground rather than allowing surface pedestrian crossings; Mr. Charbonneau said the administration’s primary concern is visitor safety given the volume of traffic using the circle.
Mr. McCrery questioned the use of lion statues for the flanking sculptures, noting that the lion is not native to the North American continent, and he asked the design team to explore alternatives drawn from animals native to North America or from American history. He asked for more information about the keystone sculpture; Mr. Charbonneau confirmed that it would be a bust of an eagle without wings. Mr. McCrery suggested that the design of the keystone be reconsidered in relation to the winged eagles proposed for the top of the arch and seen elsewhere within the corridor, emphasizing that the subject and its symbolic meaning warrant further development. Mr. Charbonneau said that eagles appear in several locations throughout the corridor—on the pylons at Memorial Circle, in bas-relief at the bridge piers, and at the Lincoln Memorial—and that the keystone eagle participates in that tradition.
Mr. McCrery asked for more information about the marble used for the Lincoln Memorial; Mr. Charbonneau confirmed that it is constructed of Yule marble from Colorado, and he noted that the quarry no longer produces stone of equivalent quality. Mr. McCrery asked the project team to confirm that the National Park Service, rather than the District Department of Transportation, has sole jurisdiction over the roadways within Memorial Circle, and he said it is important that this remains the case in order to avoid the introduction of unsightly temporary street infrastructure. He also recommended that the existing lane striping within the circle be replaced with a change in its pavement material to distinguish the primary travel lane from other areas in a manner more consistent with the dignity of the location.
Ms. Harris noted that Washington was described as the only major Western capital without a triumphal arch, and she asked for a list of major Western cities with arches. Mr. Charbonneau said that Paris, Rome, and every major capital in Western Civilization has had a triumphal arch since Roman antiquity. Mr. Cook requested the development of a list of cities that Pierre L’Enfant was trying to emulate when he designed Washington.
Mr. Cook noted that the design for the arch has been under development for some time and that the work has been extraordinary. He said that the nation thanks the design team and said the Commission should work to see how the project can be moved forward. He also noted his earlier concerns about the structural stability of the surmounting sculptures in high-wind conditions, and he asked Robin Rode, managing director of the firm Les Métalliers Champenois (LMC), to address the proposed structural approach for the statues.
Mr. Rode said his firm was brought onto the project by Mr. Charbonneau because of its work on the restoration of the Statue of Liberty in the mid-1980s, including the full rebuilding of the torch and flame. He presented images of that work, showing the traditional repoussé cladding process, in which copper sheets are formed and assembled over a steel structure; the same method is being contemplated for the proposed statues atop the arch. He said preliminary design work is underway to evaluate the technical options, and that given the compressed timeline for this project, modern fabrication methods including CNC machining and casting processes are being considered alongside traditional techniques. He said cast elements could be produced more quickly while achieving the same structural result of panels attached to the primary and secondary structure.
Mr. Cook asked Mr. Charbonneau to address the transfer of the statue’s weight through the top of the arch. Mr. Charbonneau said that the repoussé cladding method would substantially reduce the weight of the sculpture when compared to a solid casting, and that several structural techniques for transferring the load are under consideration. Mr. Cook said he is interested in seeing how the weight transfer would be resolved in subsequent submissions.
Secretary Luebke then summarized the public comments received, noting that just under 1,000 comments were submitted as of the deadline, all in opposition to the project. He said the principal concerns expressed were that the proposed arch represents a misuse of funds; that the arch would obstruct historic views and disrupt the landscape; that the design is oversized and incompatible with its surroundings; that the symbolism is perceived as politically motivated; and that the structure would be disrespectful to the setting of Arlington National Cemetery. He said one submission offered an alternative design for the site. He said letters were also received from organizations including The Committee of 100 on the Federal City, the D.C. Preservation League, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Cultural Heritage Partners.
Secretary Luebke read into the record a representative individual letter, which said, in part, that the proposal raises questions of scale, context, and stewardship; that the Washington and Arlington skyline is one of the most carefully composed civic landscapes in the United States; that the proposed arch, at 250’, would be profoundly out of scale with its surroundings; that it would compete visually with existing national monuments whose significance derives from the space and restraint afforded to them; and that altering the established planning norms of the capital for a single project would set a troubling precedent.
Chairman Cook then invited public testimony. Mr. Zachary Burt, community outreach and grants manager for the D.C. Preservation League, said his organization is dedicated to preserving and protecting the District’s historic resources and is in strong opposition to the proposed arch. He said that the visual connection between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial symbolizes the sacrifices the nation has made in pursuit of its highest ideals, and that the overwhelming scale of the proposed structure risks overshadowing the revered landmarks that define the national landscape. He said that Memorial Circle, part of the larger Memorial Bridge corridor, serves as a symbolic node between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House, physically and spiritually bridging the north and south after the Civil War, and that the Neoclassical pylons topped with sculpted eagles established the island’s role as a formal entrance to Washington. He urged the Commission to reject the proposed arch in order to preserve the viewshed, honor the service members buried in Arlington National Cemetery, and maintain the design harmony of the Memorial Bridge corridor.
Ms. Lisa Fuller, a resident of the Washington metropolitan area, said Memorial Bridge and its surrounding landscape were designed to embody dignity, balance, and the solemn link between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. She said that she is concerned about the precedent that a major alteration of this kind would set, and that any such change should be approached with great care to ensure the integrity of these nationally significant spaces. She urged the Commission to weigh whether the proposal aligns with its mission to preserve and enhance the design excellence of the nation’s capital.
Ms. Kevin Wheeler, a long-time resident of Washington, D.C., said she opposes the arch and urged the Commission to vote against it. She said the renderings published in Philip Kennicott’s column in the Washington Post demonstrate that the scale of the project would be inconsistent with its surroundings, and she asked that a link to that column be included in the record [https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2026/03/23/trump-washington-architecture-ballroom-arch]. She said that if any arch is ultimately considered, it must be at an appropriate scale, as well as simple and elegant.
The final public comment was made by Mr. H. Edward Phillips III, an attorney from Franklin, Tennessee, who spoke in support of the arch. He said the founders of the nation, and those who have sacrificed for it, deserve to be honored, and that he does not view the proposed arch as offensive to that tradition.
Chairman Cook invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Harris said she regards the proposed addition of the arch to Washington’s skyline as an intentional decision that would honor the original vision for Memorial Circle and for Columbia Island. She said the primary 166’ height pays appropriate homage to the original intent, and the 250’ overall height would be a fitting commemoration of the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of American independence. She said these considerations are consistent with the original concept for the site and with the tradition of monumental arches in other Western capitals, and she urged her fellow Commission members to move forward with concept approval.
Mr. McCrery thanked the members of the public who provided testimony regarding the project. He noted that another element seen within this monumental corridor is the eternal flame at the gravesite of President John F. Kennedy. He said that one can actually see the flame flickering at night from certain distant vantage points, which he characterized as wonderful and deeply poetic. He also made reference to the testimony from the D.C. Preservation League, agreeing that most everyone is against architectural excess, and that it will be determined later whether this is an accurate characterization of the design.
Mr. McCrery strongly recommended that surface pedestrian crossings be considered as an alternative or supplement, noting that crosswalks with traffic-slowing and stopping measures are used effectively at comparable locations throughout the city, and that a subterranean passage of at least 250’ in length would be less than ideal for visitors and present security issues. He suggested that crosswalks might be located at points where traffic naturally slows, and that reducing the extent of subterranean infrastructure would allow greater symmetry in the surface approach to the platform.
Mr. McCrery observed that a standard-sized entrance door into the arch is proposed, and said that if interior access is a design goal, the opening should be more substantial. He also strongly encouraged the design team to explore opening up the side faces of the arch by introducing apertures or fenestration to reduce the apparent massiveness of the structure and give it greater visual porosity. He said this approach is used in the Arc de Triomphe and other precedents and would strengthen the design and ensure that both the axial and oblique views are preserved. He also said that in order for the Commission and others to comprehensively review the design, the program of freestanding and relief sculptures should be incorporated into subsequent presentations, even if the final subjects have not been determined, because the presence or absence of sculptural content will fundamentally alter the character of the elevations.
Mr. McCrery said that the height of the arch to the chêneau, or cresting, at the top of the attic, shown to be 166’, would be consistent with the Memorial Bridge Commission’s 1924 precedent, and he said he values that dimension. He said the design is very beautiful and has improved greatly, but that he would encourage the design team to study the arch without the three large surmounting sculptures, thereby removing the additional eighty-four feet of sculpture above the cornice, which would allow the arch to participate more effectively in the language of Washington’s monumental architecture. He requested that additional views be prepared for the next submission, specifically views from the Custis-Lee Mansion looking east toward the Lincoln Memorial, and from the Hemicycle looking toward the arch. He concluded that the arch at 166’ in height would contribute to and extend this monumental corridor, and that it would become a significant destination for visitors to Washington.
Mr. Cook said that the project is personal to everyone in the room, and that the President wants to do something that in his heart he feels is good. He asked Mr. Charbonneau to calculate the height of the arch and the U.S. Capitol from sea level, so that comparisons of monument heights can be made on a consistent datum, noting that the Capitol sits on elevated ground while Memorial Circle is at river level.
Mr. McCrery said that extending the model to show the arch within the larger context that includes the Washington Monument and the Capitol—positioned accurately relative to one another, including the slight angular offset that McKim, Mead & White introduced to correct for the Washington Monument’s displacement from the Mall axis—would be very helpful in determining the appropriate scale of the arch.
Mr. Cook said that both sides of his family in Georgia were devastated by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, and that the eight years he lived in the Plaza Hotel in New York, overlooking Sherman’s equestrian statue, were irritating; however, as much as the public commentors believe what they have said, the arch is deeply personal for the President and the Commission’s obligation is to get the design right. He concluded by reading a moving passage from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Upon a motion by Ms. Harris with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission approved the concept design with the comments provided, and with the understanding that the Commission would review a subsequent iteration of the design before the final review. Chairman Cook also confirmed that the Commission is requesting the submission of additional structural information regarding the foundation system at that next review.
C. Executive Office of the President / U.S. Secret Service / National Park Service
CFA 16/APR/26-2, Sherman Park / President’s Park, E Street and East Executive Avenue, NW. Visitor screening facility and landscape. (Previous: CFA 19/MAR/26-1) Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the second concept submission for a new visitor screening facility for the White House complex, to be located in Sherman Park, immediately south of the Treasury Building. He said most of the facility would be located below grade on the western side of the park, with above-grade components including a ramped entry sequence at the south side of the park and a new exit structure on East Executive Avenue near the Treasury; associated elements include site walls, bollards, mechanical grates, an exit stair, and new landscape plantings.
Mr. Luebke said the Commission previously reviewed the project at its February meeting, expressing strong support for the program to improve White House security while also providing recommendations to redesign the above-grade components in a style consistent with the 2025 Executive Order on federal buildings; to center the south entrance on the north–south axis extending from the Treasury through the Sherman Monument; to preserve the Monument’s setting as much as possible, including site walls and walks; and to reduce the footprint and height of the exit pavilion while studying its location. He said the current proposal responds to many of these comments: the south entrance has been recentered and redesigned in a more Classical style; the four existing diagonal paths in the park would remain or be rebuilt; new retaining walls have been lowered; and the exit pavilion, while roughly the same in footprint, has been reduced eighteen inches in height and refined to reflect a more Classical character, with engaged columns on the east side, double columns at the corners, and an established rhythm of glazed and blind windows. He asked Andy Stohs, a civil engineer with the U.S. Secret Service, to introduce the project.
Mr. Stohs said visitor security screening is currently conducted in temporary above-grade structures on East Executive Avenue that have been in place since 2005, when screening operations were relocated southward to provide additional standoff distance. Part of Sherman Park currently serves as a queuing and identification check area for tour visitors, with tents erected for large events to accommodate additional screening needs. He said the goal of the proposed facility is to replace these temporary structures with a permanent installation appropriate to the setting, and to restore the park to public use. He said alternative locations were considered, including sites further into the Ellipse, but those options were deemed to be infeasible. He asked Jeff Harner, project architect with AECOM, to present the design.
Mr. Harner described the proposed facility, beginning with the site plan. He said Sherman Park is organized around four quadrants defined by diagonal paths leading to the Sherman Monument at the center. The proposed entrance plaza would be located in the south quadrant, with visitors entering from the southeast corner of the park and descending into the below-grade facility situated in the west quadrant. Construction of the facility would require temporary removal of the northwest and southwest paths, which would be restored as part of the project. In the current design, the plaza is centered on the Treasury Building and the Monument. An emergency egress stairwell is included in the design, and mechanical venting would be screened with plantings, as would most walls throughout the site.
Mr. Harner said the only above-grade structure north of the park would be the staff screening facility and exit pavilion, which engages an existing fence line along East Executive Avenue. The landscape west of East Executive Avenue is being addressed as part of the East Wing modernization project. He said that badged staff would enter at both 15th Street and E Street, complete an initial credential check, and proceed through the facility on a path separate from visitor circulation. He said the park area above the below-grade facility would be accessible to the public at all times upon completion.
Mr. Harner said the entrance plaza location was chosen to minimize the height of retaining walls, as this is the lowest part of the site. The existing curved walls at the corners of the park would be incorporated into the plaza design, while the wall along the west side of the plaza would tie into the existing curved wall at the southwest corner and continue around the exit stair, gradually reducing in height as the grade ascends. He said the project team is evaluating an eighteen-inch reduction of the height of the retaining wall that contains the entrance to the facility, while maintaining a forty-two-inch guardrail height, which would also allow the roof of the facility below to be lowered further.
Mr. Harner said the entrance has been redesigned with eight columns and an entablature in a Classical character, creating a formal identity for the White House visitors entrance that has not previously existed. The doors would be set back from the face of the retaining wall, and each door would be framed by columns. He said the project team is working with the Executive Office of the President on signage, which may include presidential seals and related elements to enrich the visitor experience. Describing the entry sequence, Mr. Harner said visitors would proceed from the plaza into a queuing area for an initial identification check, then through a secondary identification check and pre-screening, and finally into a primary screening area. The primary screening area is designed for maximum flexibility, with an open layout accommodating airport-style screening equipment and the ability to adapt as technology evolves. Visitors would then proceed through a tunnel under Hamilton Place and exit via escalators or elevators on the north side of the exit structure. He said incorporation of architectural elements retained from the East Wing demolition, including full-size columns, windows, and other salvaged materials, is being explored.
Mr. Harner presented section drawings and views illustrating the relationships between the proposed below-grade facility and Sherman Park, including views at the entrance plaza, the retaining walls, and the exit pavilion. He said the design provides three to five feet of soil depth above the facility to allow for tree growth within the park; the greater depth would be on the north side of the park for larger trees. He said that the exit pavilion requires a twelve-foot interior clear height to accommodate screening equipment, and that the roof has been lowered eighteen inches and flattened since the previous submission. The building would be set at a level determined in consultation with civil engineers as the lowest practicable elevation at East Executive Drive; it would be placed on a base with accessible stairs and ramping, with mirrored landscape on either side.
Mr. Harner said the exit pavilion has been redesigned to a higher quality than standard U.S. Secret Service designs and will incorporate Classical elements, such as Doric-style columns, an entablature, a small parapet to conceal the elevator overrun, pilasters with rhythmic spacing on the east and west elevations, and glazing where possible, coordinated with screening equipment locations. He said the use of paired columns is still being studied, particularly on the north side in relation to door requirements at the top of the escalator, and the team is also still working to reduce the building’s overall height and length.
Chairman Cook opened discussion and asked Secretary Luebke to confirm the status of the review. Mr. Luebke confirmed that this is a second concept submission, as the Commission took no formal action at the previous review and provided substantive comments; he noted that there are no public comments regarding this submission.
Chairman Cook said the current design is a substantial improvement over the previous submission, and he asked Mr. Harner about the architectural elements retained from the East Wing demolition, specifically the paneling and other salvaged materials. Mr. Harner said the team is working through a comprehensive inventory of retained elements, noting that full-size columns, windows from the movie theater, and a significant amount of other finishes and materials have been retained. He said the team will assess which elements would best serve the visitor experience narrative within the facility.
Mr. Cook said that visiting the White House is a momentous experience and that this should be reflected in the character of the proposed facility, adding that he is encouraged that salvaged elements may be incorporated into the project. He asked whether a street-level elevation showing the relationship of the new entrance facade to the surrounding topography and streetscape is available. Mr. Harner said that such a drawing has not yet been prepared but that he understands the request. Mr. Cook asked about the inscriptions or text shown on the attic. Mr. Harner said the current placeholder reads “White House Visitor Entrance,” but the team is still considering whether any words will appear at the entrance at all, or whether presidential seals would be used at the entrance to the plaza, with any text positioned further into the entry sequence. Mr. Cook said that inscriptions on buildings of this character are uncommon, noting that the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court do not have building-identifying inscriptions, and he suggested that a presidential seal would be sufficient.
Mr. Cook asked if the top of the retaining wall on the south side of the proposed entrance plaza could be stepped rather than treated as a continuous slope so as to establish a formal relationship between the wall and the new entrance facade. Mr. McCrery agreed that this would be worth further study; he added that the stepped treatment could also apply to both the wings descending from the entrance and the front wall, and that it would create a formal compositional relationship between the center of the site wall and the center of the entrance facade.
Mr. McCrery suggested that the historic columns retained from the East Wing demolition could be used for the columns proposed at the new entrance facade, commenting that the salvaged columns are noble works of architecture in their own right and that their incorporation into the project would be architecturally significant. Mr. Harner said that he has not yet examined the salvaged columns in detail but that he will explore this possibility.
Mr. McCrery said that once the overall height of the wall at the new entrance is established, the proportional composition of the entablature and the attic zone above it should be carefully restudied. He said the entablature as currently shown is too shallow relative to the overall height, making the attic zone appear top-heavy, and he recommended increasing the proportional depth of the entablature—the combination of the architrave, frieze, and cornice—so that the attic above it would be in a better proportional relationship with the whole. Mr. Harner agreed that the current composition is top-heavy and said the team would recompose the elevation proportionately once the eighteen-inch reduction is incorporated, including reconsidering the width-to-height ratio of the columns. Mr. McCrery said the frieze is the appropriate location for Classical decoration, such as inscriptions, the presidential seal, an eagle with leaves and arrows, or other ornament expressive of presidential and executive authority; this would communicate the underground building’s association with the White House without requiring explicit text identification.
Mr. McCrery recommended that the stone coursing on the walls of the entrance court be laid in a running bond pattern throughout rather than in a stacked grid; he said this would be more elegant and more appropriate to the prominence of the walls in the design. Mr. Harner said the design team is already working on this, particularly in relation to the transition from the new walls to the existing walls of the park. Mr. McCrery said that the interior walls of the plaza, which would grow in height as the grade drops toward the facility entrance, warrant a more robust architectural treatment than the comparatively low retaining walls of the park itself, perhaps including a more substantial cornice, and that the stepped wall treatment suggested by Mr. Cook might provide a natural opportunity to transition from the existing wall to the new.
Ms. Patenaude asked whether the salvaged East Wing columns would be used on the exterior of the new entrance or incorporated decoratively on the interior. Mr. Harner said the current thinking is to use them as historical elements in the interior, as the team has not yet had an opportunity to fully evaluate their dimensions. Ms. Patenaude asked whether the exterior columns of the new entrance would match the columns of the East Wing ballroom. Mr. Harner said the new entrance columns are proposed to be Doric, which is distinct from the primarily Corinthian order of the proposed ballroom. He noted that Doric columns are also present in the West Wing Colonnade, providing a precedent for using the order at this scale and in this setting.
Mr. McCrery also recommended the use of a running bond pattern for the cladding of the exit pavilion and site walls, rather than the stacked bond coursing as shown. He said the building would have an appropriate domestic quality and he commended the design team. He also acknowledged that the team is still working on the column arrangement in relation to the three exit doors, and Mr. Harner confirmed that the team intends to pair the columns closest to the center of each door opening so that the three doors occupy three equal bays; he said this configuration was informed by study of the demolished East Wing’s south facade. Mr. Cook agreed that the above-grade exit pavilion is much improved and that the design engages in the architectural vocabulary of the Treasury Building in a complementary and coherent way.
Mr. Taylor expressed strong support for the project and commended the design team for the quality of the revisions, which he said are worthy of the White House. He said that the Commission’s previous comments have been taken into account effectively and that he is confident the final design will be of a high quality.
Mr. Cook asked for additional information regarding the reference to airport-style security screening within the facility. Mr. Harner clarified that the comparison refers exclusively to the type and arrangement of screening equipment—not to the interior design—and that the goal is to maintain layout flexibility as screening technology evolves rather than creating permanently fixed screening lanes. Mr. Cook asked for more description of the design for the interior, including the queuing and transition spaces, observing that the current plan shows awkward angular transitions that are not appropriate for the character of a White House entrance. Mr. Harner said the interior design is actively being developed, that the egress sequence has been recentered, and that the team is formalizing the interior spaces throughout. He said the ceilings are being designed with coffered treatments at scales appropriate to each area of the facility, and he confirmed that the team shares the concern about the underground corridor’s character and is working to address it.
Mr. Cook suggested that a circular or oval transitional room between the screening area and the passage to the exit pavilion might improve the visitor experience. Mr. McCrery agreed, commenting that the current diagonal connector between the screening area and the escalator calls to mind the experience of an exceptionally long transit concourse at Washington Dulles International Airport. He agreed that squaring the connection and introducing a gracious transitional room with coffered ceilings would benefit the circulation, as it would read as a composed series of formal spaces rather than a continuous corridor. Mr. Cook suggested that such a transitional room might evoke the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House, noting that this room historically served a comparable welcoming function for over a century. He also suggested that the interior walls of the tunnel might incorporate virtual windows looking onto a digital representation of the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden, which no longer exists in its original location, to provide a sense of spaciousness and a connection to White House history. He noted that the virtual content could be varied to reflect the occasion and could serve as part of a designed guest experience before visitors emerge onto the grounds.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to approve the concept design with the comments provided, noting the Commission’s request to see the project return as soon as practicable with developments in response to these comments; upon second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission adopted this action.
D. Executive Office of the President
CFA 16/APR/26-3, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Exterior improvements. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for exterior improvements to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB). He said the French Second Empire style building, located across East Executive Avenue from the White House, contains the Executive Office of the President (EOP). The building is nearly 700,000 square feet in size and was constructed in four phases from 1871–1888 to house the Departments of State, War, and Navy. The Department of State remained in the building until 1947, when it moved to Foggy Bottom and the EOP assumed occupancy of the entire building. He said the building is constructed of massive load-bearing grey granite blocks with cast-iron details and slate mansard roofs, and that its ornate architecture, derived from the public building campaigns of the French government in the mid-nineteenth century, expressed the aspirations of post-Civil War America. He said the style was initially popular but came to be regarded as out of date by the end of the century, increasingly at odds with the grand Classicism of the Beaux-Arts era. However, the building’s sheer scale and massive stone construction prevented the restyling or demolition that was proposed on several occasions during the twentieth century.
Mr. Luebke said the property was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1971. Although numerous piecemeal improvements were made over subsequent decades, including the installation of hundreds of window-mounted air conditioning units in the twentieth century, the building was not comprehensively modernized until the twenty-first century. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the EEOB was systematically rehabilitated over more than a decade, with a comprehensive program of blast protection, window replacement, stone and roof repairs, and replacement of all interior systems including HVAC, plumbing, electrical, data, and communications. He said that the total cost of the rehabilitation program exceeded $500 million, including $12.5 million in recent exterior repairs, and that this work was substantially completed by 2017. He said the current proposal is to paint the exterior of the building white, with the intention of aligning it visually with the White House. He asked Joshua Fisher, assistant to the president and director of the White House Office of Management and Administration and the Office of Administration, to introduce the project.
Mr. Fisher said the EEOB has a history of eliciting polarizing opinions, noting that Mark Twain is reputed to have called it the ugliest building in America while President Harry S. Truman called it the country’s greatest monstrosity; by contrast, others have described it as one of the nation’s finest examples of the Second Empire style. He said that while the building has been renovated and restored, those renovations were largely limited to the interior, and that the exterior facade has been largely neglected since its construction in the late nineteenth century. He said the exterior exhibits grime, soot, staining, tar, cracks, breaks, salt accumulation, oxidation stains, and biological growth. He said stonemasons have assessed the feasibility of cleaning the facade and have advised that there is no guarantee that cleaning alone would restore the building to its original appearance. The administration’s proposal is to apply a white silicate-based paint to the granite facade, excluding the interior courtyards, together with additional exterior refurbishments. He said the close association of the EEOB with the White House complex makes the white paint appropriate. He asked Ryan Erb, an architect and construction operations manager with the Executive Office of the President, to present the details of the proposal.
Mr. Erb said the Executive Office of the President is undertaking the project to improve the appearance of the EEOB and to address apparent maintenance issues. He said the building was designed by architect Alfred B. Mullett and stands as one of the best surviving examples of Second Empire style architecture in the country. He said Mullett selected granite from two quarries: the Westham Quarry outside of Richmond, Virginia, and the Bodwell Granite Company in Vinalhaven, Maine. He said the first major restoration of the EEOB began in the 1980s under the Reagan Administration and focused primarily on the building’s interiors, while a three-phase modernization project from 2004 to 2014 addressed exterior masonry, doors, and window sashes. Despite these efforts, the building now exhibits chips, staining, and general signs of wear in some locations. He said the large granite stones used in construction are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to replace given the nature of the masonry wall construction and the scale of thestones, and that conventional repair approaches such as Dutchman repairs are problematic because matching the current color of the stone while ensuring that repairs age at the same rate is nearly impossible, often resulting in noticeable blotches at repair locations.
Mr. Erb said painting the building is intended to meet federal policy objectives for public buildings, enhance the visual character of the area adjacent to the White House, and support institutional dignity. He said the administration is developing a plan for applying a photocatalytic silicate exterior paint that is self-cleaning, water-repellent, and highly vapor-permeable, allowing the stone to breathe and release moisture while preventing infiltration from air pollutants, fungal growth, and biological growth. He said surface preparation would include repointing of deteriorated mortar, sealant replacement, stone crack sealing, fill repairs, and removal of biological growth, and that moisture levels in the surface would be brought to no greater than eighteen percent by volume before application to ensure proper adhesion. He said previously painted elements such as cast-iron chimneys, sculptures, cornices, railings, and roof trim would be cleaned and repainted. He said that the mineral-based silicate paint would bond to the structure while maintaining the building’s architectural texture and character, and that the process is both repeatable and removable; according to the manufacturer, the paint will last twenty to twenty-five years with minimal touch-ups required.
Mr. Erb presented two design options. Option 1 shows the silicate paint applied to the upper part of the building above a datum at approximately the basement and ground levels, leaving the lower base as exposed granite; this datum marks the boundary between the Richmond granite used for the lower part of the building and the Maine granite used for the upper part. Option 2 shows the silicate paint applied to both the upper and lower parts of the building, with the datum line eliminated. He presented several views of the building illustrating both options and the relationship of the EEOB to the Executive Residence and the West Wing.
Mr. McCrery asked the presenters to display Options 1 and 2 alternately so that the Commission members could better understand the visual distinction between them. Mr. Erb confirmed that Option 2, which extends the paint to the full building including the lower base, is the option preferred by the administration.
Mr. Cook asked Mr. Erb to explain how the proposed paint would protect the building in light of public comments raising concerns that no such product would perform adequately on granite. Mr. Erb said the administration has been working with paint consultants, manufacturers, and engineering experts to identify the appropriate product, and said it has strong confidence that the mineral silicate paint will both protect the surface and allow the building to breathe. He said the coarse texture of the EEOB granite, resulting from more than 130 years of weathering, would provide sufficient physical adhesion for the silicate to bond to the substrate.
Mr. Cook asked when the administration expects to complete testing and finalize a product selection. Mr. Erb said testing has not yet commenced, as the administration has been awaiting some level of approval before proceeding with the testing phase. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Fisher what guidance the White House was seeking from the Commission. Mr. Fisher said that the administration is seeking confirmation from the Commission that the project is worth pursuing, and that once concept-level review is complete, the administration intends to also present the proposal to the National Capital Planning Commission. He said the administration would undertake testing and would welcome the opportunity to bring results and samples back to the Commission.
Ms. Harris asked Mr. Fisher to confirm that the administration intends to conduct testing after receiving concept approval and would then return with findings. Mr. Fisher confirmed this, saying the administration would like conceptual approval that the project is worth pursuing, after which it would conduct testing, develop samples, and confirm whether the proposed paint performs as intended in practice.
Secretary Luebke then summarized the public comments received on the case. He said approximately 900 comments were submitted, all in opposition to the proposal. He said the principal concerns raised were that painting the building would violate its National Historic Landmark status; that the proposed coating is chemically incompatible with the granite, as potassium silicate coatings require calcium carbonate in the substrate to bond properly, a condition present in sandstone and marble but not in granite; that paint traps moisture within the stone, potentially causing further degradation; that staining and biological growth would be more visible against white paint than against the natural grey granite; that removal of the paint would be extremely difficult and damaging; and that aligning the EEOB visually with the White House is a flawed rationale, as the building has its own distinct identity and the grey tones of the EEOB and the Treasury Building play a critical role in the visual composition of the White House complex, allowing the White House itself to stand apart as a singular, white focal point. He said comments were also received from organizations and individuals including the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the L’Enfant Trust, the D.C. Preservation League, the National Council of Negro Women, Cultural Heritage Partners, a former official from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, conservators, former curators at the Executive Office of the President, and the D.C. State Historic Preservation Office, all in strong opposition.
Secretary Luebke then read a representative letter from Andrew Dolkart, a professor of historic preservation at Columbia University who wrote a history of the EEOB commissioned by the Reagan Administration in the early 1980s. Mr. Luebke said the letter states that the EEOB is one of the premier examples of French Second Empire design and a proud monument to federal architecture; that the grey granite from Maine was specifically chosen for the building; that painting it white would entirely destroy the intent of Mullett’s design; that paint traps water, creates conditions for stone deterioration, and would become inevitably dirty, requiring additional layers that would progressively destroy the visual qualities of the carved details; and that restoration and preservation, not painting, should be the goal for the building’s future.
Chairman Cook then invited public testimony. Greg Werkheiser, counsel to the D.C. Preservation League, said he had conducted a survey of twenty-five leading architects, architectural historians, and historic masonry specialists regarding the application of the proposed coating to the EEOB. He said these professionals, who together have more than 650 years of relevant experience and include individuals who have managed restoration projects at the White House and the U.S. Capitol, reached complete consensus on ten questions. He summarized their findings: first, granite should not be painted with any type of paint, including mineral silicate paint, because granite lacks the calcium carbonate necessary to form a chemical bond, and therefore the protective qualities attributed to silicate coatings—which apply only when this chemical bond occurs—cannot be realized on this building; second, paint does not strengthen granite or protect it from deterioration; third, application of paint requires abrasion of the surface to allow adhesion, which is a permanent, irreparable alteration; fourth, silicate paint traps moisture and causes the surface of the stone to fail over time; fifth, staining will be significantly more visible against white paint than against the natural grey granite; sixth, removing the paint would be impossible without causing further damage to the stone; seventh, cleaning and repainting would require far more frequent maintenance than unpainted granite; eighth, the long-term costs of painting, repainting, and cleaning would be substantially higher than periodic cleaning of the granite; ninth, the ongoing maintenance requirements would create persistent security concerns as workers on scaffolding would be present around the building on a continuous basis; and tenth, the experts are at universal consensus that altering the granite’s color would be historically inappropriate and visually disruptive to the context of the White House complex.
Mr. Werkheiser concluded that in the absence of information concerning the specific materials, application process, qualified vendors, historical basis for the change, long-term performance projections, comparable case studies, or full life-cycle cost accounting, the Commission should either deny the proposal or defer action until other federal review processes, including under the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, have elicited the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Marion Werkheiser, a partner with Cultural Heritage Partners, said she would like to speak on behalf of more than 900 professional architects, preservationists, and design professionals who submitted comments in opposition. She said the proposed painting would cause permanent physical harm to the building, a conclusion shared by the twenty-five leading experts whose sworn declarations have been prepared for use in federal proceedings should thecproject proceed. She said the application of paint requires abrasion of the stone surface, that paint traps moisture and causes cracking, flaking, and surface degradation over time, and that paint cannot be removed without further damaging historic masonry. She said that silicate coatings are effective on limestone and sandstone but not on granite, and that experts agree such coatings may perform even worse on granite than conventional paint. She said the painting would fundamentally alter an important civic composition, as the grey tones of the EEOB and the Treasury Building were designed to frame the White House and allow it to stand apart as a singular focal point; painting the EEOB white, given its considerably larger scale, would undermine that balance and change how one of the most important civic spaces in the country is experienced. She said there are better, proven alternatives that achieve the stated goals without harm, including conservation-grade cleaning, repointing, modern lighting that could enhance the building’s presence in wholly reversible ways, and window treatments that increase light reflectivity. She closed by quoting President Ronald Reagan’s 1988 description of the building as one of America’s finest examples of its architectural style and an architectural treasure, and she urged the Commission to reject the proposal.
Lieutenant Helen Hart, a member of the National Council of Negro Women, stated her presence at the hearing and indicated she had been sent to observe proceedings and report to the organization’s national leadership.
Dr. Nechama Liss-Levinson, a D.C. resident and practicing psychologist, said she is appearing not as an architect or historian but rather to address the emotional and psychological dimensions of the proposal. She said research in environmental psychology demonstrates that historic buildings enhance residents’ sense of belonging and security, that recognizable historic structures provide grounding and calm in urban environments, and that governmental historic buildings increase civic pride and patriotism. She said that the familiar ensemble of the White House complex, including the EEOB, constitutes an indelible civic image for residents and visitors, and that permanently altering the building’s appearance would be disconcerting and would damage the collective sense of identity and community. She asked the Commission to reject the proposal.
A member of the public who identified herself as Ms. Wheeler said the Commission should not approve the painting of the EEOB. She said the building is beautiful and should be preserved, and that cleaning, as has been done successfully in London and Paris, would be preferable to painting. She said that a coating of white paint would give the building a prefabricated appearance and would not age well; that the proposed paint, estimated to last twenty-five years, is not comparable to the granite itself, which has lasted 138 years; and that the painting appears to be an immediate solution rather than a long-term preservation strategy.
Chairman Cook asked the White House staff to address the topic of paint testing. He also asked if there was information in the Commission’s archives regarding the initial painting of the fragile sandstone exterior of the White House, which he said has been repeatedly painted since it was burned during the War of 1812, and he asked if there was a similar public reaction when the White House was first painted. Secretary Luebke responded that it was scorched by fire from the burning of Washington in 1813; he made reference to one of the letters noting that sandstone is porous and will degrade over time, and that a sealant may help preserve the stone; typically, granite is much denser and not painted. Mr. Cook said he is assisting with several items related to the upcoming state visit of his Majesty the King of England; he said that there are many granite buildings from Edwardian times in England that are painted, and that he would check with some of his old friends in England to see what their perspectives are. He said he has not done a granite building, as most of his have been Georgia marble. Mr. McCrery responded that he uses granite sparingly due to its expense; he noted that it is hydrophobic, especially in comparison to limestone and any other sedimentary stones, as granite is an igneous rock and formed of magma.
Mr. McCrery said the Commission faces a fundamental conflict of competing technical claims, with the applicant asserting that the paint will allow the stone to breathe and protect it, while the opposition asserts that it will trap moisture and damage the stone, and with opposing positions as well on the questions of reversibility and the chemistry of adhesion. Mr. Erb said the granite’s surface texture, having been weathered and abraded over 138 years from its original smooth surface to a rougher surface, comparable to a sugar cube, provides sufficient physical adhesion for the silicate to bond to the substrate. He said testing will be conducted to confirm the degree of chemical bond as well. He said the silicate paint is designed to be permeable, allowing moisture to escape the building. He said that if removal were ever desired, vapor-pressurized application of a water slurry with fine particulate material, calibrated to be stronger than the silicate but softer than the granite, could be used, and that granite’s strength and durability work in the applicant’s favor in this regard.
Mr. McCrery confirmed with Mr. Erb that the specifications for the paint have not yet been finalized, and testing on a sample stone would be necessary to effectively refute the opposition’s objections. Mr. Fisher said the administration has located replicate stone matching the specific granite of the EEOB and is currently conducting tests on that material; he said the administration does not intend to test on the building’s interior courtyards or on the existing structure while litigation is pending. Mr. McCrery said that undertaking such testing would go a long way toward addressing the material objections raised by the opposition. He said psychological and emotional objections have been raised concerning civic identity and the significance of familiar historic environments, and he commented that these are perhaps more within the Commission’s purview than material science.
Ms. Harris said that when considering this project, it is important to think of the White House complex as a whole composition rather than one building in isolation, since the EEOB houses the majority of White House staff. She said creating a more cohesive visual environment through painting could enhance the sense of belonging for staff who work in the EEOB rather than in the West Wing or the Executive Residence. She said the EEOB’s considerable scale currently gives it an imposing and looming presence, and that painting it white could create greater visual cohesion across the complex. She said a concept approval would allow the administration to proceed with testing and return to the Commission with findings.
Mr. McCrery said some of the concerns raised about maintenance are worth reframing: a white painted surface, unlike weathered granite, requires constant attention, and therefore an ongoing maintenance program could actually improve the building’s long-term appearance. He said painting could enhance the legibility of the building’s architectural details by brightening a structure that currently has a somewhat somber and receding character despite its immense scale. He said this brightening may better comport with the optimism that should characterize the Executive Branch. He said he would therefore encourage the administration to consider illumination as a complementary component to the painting, and to develop a broader beautification program so that improvements to the building can proceed even if testing ultimately demonstrates that painting is inadvisable. He also encouraged the administration to invite the opposition to participate in the testing and analysis. He expressed a preference for painting the entire building as shown in Option 2 and encouraged using flags and patriotic display on the building as additional enhancements.
Mr. Taylor said he would like to see the results of testing.
Ms. Patenaude offered a motion to approve the concept proposal to paint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, subject to testing.
Chairman Cook said he would like to provide additional remarks before requesting a motion to approve the project. He said that for the first time in the history of the White House complex, the entire ensemble is being considered as a whole rather than piecemeal, and that he would like the administration to present at the next submission the complete ensemble of buildings proposed for treatment to allow the Commission to evaluate the composition in its entirety. He said the white paint could help balance the scale of the complex, including the relationship with the proposed ballroom, if it can be demonstrated that the treatment will protect the building.
Upon a motion by Ms. Patenaude with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission approved the concept of painting the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, subject to testing and to the comments provided.
E. National Capital Planning Commission
CFA 16/APR/26-4, Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative, Pennsylvania Avenue from 3rd to 15th Streets, NW. Vision and Concepts. (Previous: CFA 17/MAR/22-3) Information presentation.
Secretary Luebke introduced an information presentation submitted by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative, a study considering near- and long-term improvements to the section of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 3rd and 15th Streets, NW. The study area encompasses Federal Triangle, the main Treasury Building, and several city blocks north of the avenue. He said this is a long-term project that began in 2015, partially in response to issues raised in the National Park Service’s (NPS) National Mall Plan from 2010. He said the Commission heard initial presentations on the effort in 2018 and again in 2022, with its commentary recognizing the inherent tension between everyday use of this dense urban area and the special national role of the avenue. He said the Commission also emphasized that innovative programming and use of the public realm is essential both for everyday activities and for civic events such as First Amendment activities and national celebrations. He said the project’s primary goals—as developed through workshops, expert panels, focus groups, and steering committee meetings—are to develop a grand avenue that is human-centered and socially, economically, and ecologically enduring; to celebrate the avenue’s role as a civic venue for First Amendment activities and collective expression; to simplify regulatory and management policies to streamline coordination for events and to facilitate operations and maintenance; to modernize aging infrastructure in a seamless and integrated design that enhances functionality and flexibility as a destination for events; and to amplify the layered histories present in the avenue’s ever-changing cultural landscape. He said the initiative includes extensive study and design alternatives for the configuration of the street section, as well as focused study on three principal public spaces: Freedom Plaza at the western end, Market Square at the center, and John Marshall Park at the eastern end. He asked Karin Schierhold, lead planner for the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative at NCPC, to introduce the project.
Ms. Schierhold said NCPC is leading the Pennsylvania Avenue Project Partnership, which includes six federal and local partner agencies, with the Commission of Fine Arts serving as an advisor. The partners are working with consultant teams to prepare a new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue consisting of two components: David Rubin Land Collective is leading the
public space plan, and HR&A Advisors is developing the implementation program. She said the focus of the presentation is the public space plan, which will provide a design framework and guidance for the corridor and its three principal public spaces. She said the initial design concepts presented would be further developed and included in the final public space plan, and that concurrently, the project team is working with partner agency leadership to identify an efficient management structure to address the immediate and long-term needs of the avenue. She said the project focuses on the 1.2-mile segment of Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the U.S. Capitol, forty acres of adjacent public space, and major north–south connections between the National Mall and Downtown Washington. She said the avenue and its immediate area constitute a National Historic Site, home to many historically significant buildings, statues, memorials, parks, and landscape features, and that the new plan would advance the President’s Executive Order directing that the District of Columbia be made safe and beautiful by improving public space and security, and modernizing infrastructure. She said the Commission’s and the public’s feedback would help refine the designs considered for future analysis, and that the project team anticipates returning to the Commission in the fall for a concept review, with a final review anticipated early the following year. The project deliverable will be a new plan with a schematic design that addresses both physical design and infrastructure modernization and provides guidance for detailed final design and construction documents to be developed in a future phase of work. She asked David Rubin of David Rubin Land Collective to present the design approach and concepts.
Mr. Rubin said that Pennsylvania Avenue can be considered the connective tissue that links the legislative and judicial branches with the executive, and that it is a prominent example of a grand boulevard in the context of a capital city; however, there are aspects of it that are underwhelming in the context of how it is read today. He said there is an opportunity to rewrite the landscape in such a way that it will bring both beauty and safety, as well as social vibrancy, the capacity for large events, and opportunities for broad public participation. He said the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan (1972) was created on behalf of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC). This plan was realized in 1974 and administered through 1996 by the PADC—a single governing body with jurisdiction over the entirety of the avenue. Since 1996, governance has been fragmented: the D.C. Government has jurisdiction over the cartway, NPS has jurisdiction from the curb to the building face, and NCPC holds design decision-making authority alongside the Commission of Fine Arts and other agencies. He said that the eastern end of the study area is under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, and that the project team is collaborating with the Architect of the Capitol on solutions that can extend across both properties. He said the PADC plan is now more than fifty years old, and much of the infrastructure within the avenue dates to the nineteenth century. He said thirty-five million people per year visit the National Mall and move north toward the city, but because the avenue is large and over-scaled, many do not continue into the economic opportunities of the city itself, and this project offers an opportunity to stitch the city back together with a level of vibrancy and engagement that would support both the Mall and the broader city fabric.
Mr. Rubin said the challenges of the avenue are many: it floods regularly, being at one of the lowest points in the city; trees are missing; the paving system is a product of a modernist construct that has aged; and living systems are not flourishing because soil science was not well understood at the time of the avenue’s last major improvement. He said the baseline conditions and requirements begin with the Inaugural Parade, governed by the Military District of Washington, whose requirements are the starting point for the safety framework; additional considerations include multi-modal transportation, view corridors to the U.S. Capitol, the framing role of the tree canopy, and north–south connections that welcome all Americans to what should serve as the nation’s main street.
Mr. Rubin said the shared vision for the public space master plan focuses on the avenue as a human-centered, socially, economically, and ecologically enduring place; a venue where First Amendment activities can take place; a street with simplified regulatory and management policies under a singular governing body, which is being studied in parallel with the design work; and modernized infrastructure that supports new stories, memories, and events. He said the avenue is intended to serve simultaneously as a “live, gather, and act” place operating at the national level and also as the connective tissue of the city. He said the presentation includes several design alternatives. The corridor from 3rd to 13th Street is addressed with two alternatives—one consisting of a quincunx or staggered canopy tree configuration, and a variant that marries that configuration with a columnar or “fastigiate” tree allée recalling Thomas Jefferson’s original intent. The presentation also addresses alternatives at the western end with options for Freedom Plaza and Pershing Park, as well as single alternatives with options for Market Square and for John Marshall Park at the eastern end.
Mr. Rubin began with the street section, noting that the cartway would be adjusted in width to reflect the reduced flow of traffic, with two eastbound and two westbound travel lanes and a center turn lane, flanked by pickup and drop-off zones and a setback on either side. He said the section accommodates the Military District of Washington’s requirements for the Inaugural Parade, provides expanded sidewalk width on both the north and south sides, and locates a separated bicycle lane on the south side, both for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and to provide additional security setback for the Federal Triangle buildings. He said the first alternative is a staggered grid of canopy trees, which would provide ample shade but limit views to the Capitol. He said the second alternative marries the staggered canopy with fastigiate allées flanking the cartway, providing pedestrians on the north side and bicyclists on the south side with a distant framed view of the U.S. Capitol. He said that fastigiate trees are a naturally occurring variety, not trimmed to shape, and that a fastigiate sweetgum is shown as one example. He said both alternatives present opportunities for locating large poles along the corridor, which he said could support events through providing physical space for amplification equipment, additional lighting, and other deployable assets, with a precedent drawn from The Mall in London. He said the poles are shown at sixty feet in height and are seen as opportunities for heraldic programming, including flying national flags, diplomatic colors for visiting dignitaries, and seasonal banners, while the project team is working with partner agencies to address concerns about cellular infrastructure on such poles.
Mr. Rubin then presented two alternatives for the western end of the corridor. He said that historically, Pennsylvania Avenue passed through the site without a western terminus square, and the work of the PADC established Freedom Plaza, around which the avenue deflected; the full plan for this plaza, developed by Venturi, Scott Brown & Associates, was never fully realized. He said both current alternatives bring the plaza grade down to a standard curb level, working with the topography, which falls away on the southern side, to achieve a two-percent slope across the plaza, making it fully accessible and capable of accommodating the Inaugural Parade. In the first alternative, the avenue passes directly through the site, with the Inaugural Parade and vehicular traffic both using the central boulevard, flanked by pedestrian-priority woonerfs on the north and south sides that serve the John A. Wilson District Building and the National Theater; in the second alternative, everyday traffic routes around a defined central plaza while the Inaugural Parade passes through the middle, with a monumental fountain and a pavilion with seating. He said both alternatives ensure that the site is coplanar with the adjacent sidewalks, eliminating the current condition in which the plaza is raised above grade and disconnected from surrounding streets. He said the second alternative, with its central square, is comparable in scale to the Place de la République in Paris. He said both alternatives can accommodate large events, stages, and civic gatherings, and both provide opportunities to retain the existing equestrian statue of General Casimir Pulaski within the square’s composition.
Mr. Rubin said the Market Square area, at the center of the corridor, is the historic market district of Washington and the largest intersection of federal and urban civic life along Pennsylvania Avenue, where live-work-play activity is most directly adjacent to the federal corridor, between the National Archives and the Navy Memorial. He said the study takes advantage of the short diagonal of Indiana Avenue to create a more celebratory and humanely scaled crossing that serves as a gateway to Downtown. Two options are presented: one establishing a significant plaza that signals the threshold of a distinct urban district, with a sequence of outdoor rooms along Indiana Avenue’s length, strategic repositioning of existing sculpture, and an outdoor covered galleria along C Street to support entrepreneurial and seasonal market activity; and a second option, in which Indiana Avenue’s centerline terminates on the Beaux-Arts Neoclassical facades of Federal Triangle beyond, with the Washington Monument hovering in the distance. He said both options rehabilitate Indiana Avenue to make it more habitable and reinforce the market character of the area.
Regarding the eastern end of the study area, Mr. Rubin said John Marshall Park, designed in the 1980s by landscape architect Carol R. Johnson, has evolved over time and offers an opportunity for revitalization. Three options are presented. The first, featuring a raked lawn, removes the current terracing and works with the existing grades, creating a continuous two-percent slope accessible to all users, with rehabilitated edges and a large event lawn focused on a plaza space to the south. The second option uses the topographic change more dramatically by excavating into the site and creating a pavilion beneath the existing John Marshall statue, with accessible edges and civic buildings integrated into the landscape. The third option retains and adjusts the existing terracing, segmenting it to create distinct occupiable spaces with programming opportunities. He said the surrounding institutions, which include courthouses and the Canadian Embassy, are active primarily on weekdays, creating an opportunity for the park to serve as an active public destination on weekends and an everyday destination for visitors to the National Mall.
Mr. Rubin concluded that this presentation represents the beginning of the project’s public review timeline, with a public comment period open through the end of April, a public engagement exhibit at the National Building Museum, and an online open house available through the NCPC website. He said the project team welcomes comments and guidance from theCommission and looks forward to returning for concept review in the fall.
Chairman Cook asked to discuss the western end alternatives. He said his understanding is that the Commission of Fine Arts and its longtime chairman, J. Carter Brown, were instrumental in creating Freedom Plaza as a defined urban square, and he said Washington, while abundant in green space and avenues, lacks a definitive urban square. He said the current plaza does not function as intended, as it is elevated, disconnected from its surroundings, and used primarily by skaters and demonstrators, and he strongly recommended that the design team focus on establishing the plaza as an urban square with the Avenue routed around it, rather than through it. He cited the Tuileries, Trafalgar Square, and Red Square as examples of successful urban squares that attract large numbers of people when properly designed and managed.
Mr. McCrery agreed, commenting that he finds the “framed plaza” option of the central plaza alternative, with its simpler, clearly defined rectangular plaza, more promising because it avoids the mistake of filling the space with too many designed elements, allowing the public to inhabit and define it instead. He said surface fountains can be successful in Washington and suggested the fountain idea would be more appropriate elsewhere. He said the axial view of the U.S. Capitol dome is important and well-demonstrated by the diagrams, and he encouraged more trees and a larger canopy. He said he prefers the more compact and clearly defined rectangular form of the framed plaza, and he and Mr. Cook agreed that the subtle framing of the dome through the tree canopy at the plaza and along the avenue would be both effective and appropriately understated.
Mr. Taylor asked what would become of the existing granite paving at Freedom Plaza. Mr. Rubin said the National Park Service is currently working to refurbish the city’s fountains and that the paving could be salvaged and repurposed, noting that a similar approach was taken at Franklin Park, where viable bluestone was salvaged from the original park and reused with matching additions. Mr. Taylor asked whether the Martin Luther King Jr. time capsule would be moved. Mr. Rubin said the time capsule is located within the existing plaza, that discussions are underway with the family regarding potential repositioning, and that the capsule is intended to remain in place for eighty years, a mark that has not yet been reached. Mr. Cook said he is friends with the King family and offered to assist if needed. Mr. Taylor asked whether the Pulaski statue would remain in its current location. Mr. Rubin said the Pulaski statue is the only monument in the area that has never been moved; the framed plaza options would retain it in place, while the expanded plaza option would reposition it without removing it, subject to review by the Commission and NPS. Chairman Cook strongly recommended that the Pulaski statue remain in a prominent position within the square, and he also suggested that any pavilion structure included in the design should take a Classical form consistent with the President’s directive. Mr. McCrery agreed that the same principle should apply to any sculpture at the eastern end of the plaza.
Regarding the Market Square area, Mr. McCrery observed that a tall sculptural element is shown on the north side of the National Archives site, and he commented that no alterations should be proposed for the grounds of the Archives, out of respect for the excellence of the landscape and of the central importance of that building. He said that the Archives building itself is highly sculptural, and that it has its own sculptural program as well. He characterized it as sophisticated and brilliantly located, and he advised that it would not be appropriate to add a sculpture to the grounds. He observed that the building presents itself to the Mall, even though it is not directly on the Mall, and it also presents itself to the diagonal of Pennsylvania Avenue, even though it is perpendicular to the Mall. He said it is an independent object that is almost exactly midway between the White House and the United States Capitol, and that as the repository of the nation’s great founding documents, it should be considered hallowed ground, perhaps second only to Arlington National Cemetery, and he reiterated that he strongly recommends that the Archives and its grounds be excluded from any alterations. He suggested that if any new sculpture is necessary, it should be located on the opposite side of the Avenue, near the northwest intersection with 7th Street.
Mr. McCrery questioned using a fastigiate tree allée on the main Pennsylvania Avenue corridor. He said that while he appreciates the design team’s commitment to the fastigiate concept and acknowledges its poetic qualities, he finds large-canopied, irregular, and broad-boughed shade trees more characteristic of Washington and more appropriate for this grand avenue. He said East Capitol Street, particularly viewed from 7th or 11th Street, NE, looking toward the U.S. Capitol, demonstrates the beauty of a large canopy, where the dome is revealed and hidden in alternation through the seasonal foliage. He said that if the fastigiate allée is to be tried, Indiana Avenue offers an appropriate opportunity to test it. Mr. Rubin said he would like to continue the dialogue on this point, as he sees value in the marriage of the quincunx canopy with the fastigiate element to provide a layered experience for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that makes legible one’s position on Pennsylvania Avenue and proximity to the Capitol.
Mr. Cook noted that some international avenues, such as the Paseo del Prado in Madrid, have a central pedestrian walkway. Mr. Rubin responded that helping people understand procession and movement in the context of their experiences of the Capitol, where one can choose to be in full shade, partial shade, or along the edge and in open sunlight is a true democratic experience in that it provides the opportunity of choice. He said that as Jefferson had intended, an allée of poplars running the length of Pennsylvania Avenue seems to be a good marriage between the Modernist work of the PADC and a more historical vision. Mr. Cook reiterated that he is suggesting a central walkway within the avenue itself; Mr. Rubin said this would likely not be possible given the requirements of the Military District of Washington.
Regarding Marshall Park, Mr. McCrery expressed a preference for the “raked lawn” option, noting that a two-percent slope is universally accessible and would not require ramping. Mr. Rubin confirmed the slope and said the grade is also effective for water management, adding that human beings do not perceive slopes below three percent. Mr. McCrery said he also favors strengthening the tree allée farther up the slope with flowering trees, and he suggested that future presentations include east- and west-looking views, noting that the Canadian Embassy may be more recognizable to the public than the Prettyman Courthouse. He said his personal ranking of the three options for John Marshall Park is the raked lawn option, followed by the “hillside pavilion” option and the “terraced spaces” option. Mr. Cook agreed, noting that the park is on axis with the National Building Museum and that bringing people up from the Mall to the Judiciary Square area should also be a priority of the project.
Secretary Luebke said the Commission had received a letter from the Cultural Landscape Foundation, an education and advocacy organization, regarding the significance of John Marshall Park. He summarized the letter, noting that the organization expresses concern about the proposed alterations to John Marshall Park and the work of its landscape architect, Carol Johnson. The letter states that the park is likely eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as the work of a master landscape architect—a rare and influential woman practitioner working in the urban civic realm—and that any changes should be undertaken following a formal determination of eligibility, with reviews structured to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. Johnson was the founder of what became one of the country’s largest landscape architecture firms owned by a woman, and her design for John Marshall Park transformed a neglected area planned for a parking lot into a terraced landscape honoring the Chief Justice; the terracing is not only a character-defining design element, but it is also central to the predominant visual and spatial relationships of the site, with a twelve-foot grade change between C Street and Pennsylvania Avenue creating three distinct areas. The letter concludes that the park is due great respect and the most careful consideration for its future.
Mr. McCrery asked when the park was completed; Secretary Luebke said the park was completed in 1983. Mr. McCrery recommended that the design team present the existing conditions of the park and document how well they are being maintained. Mr. Rubin said he is pleased to do so, and he noted that his firm worked closely with the Cultural Landscape Foundation on the alterations to Pershing Park for the National World War I Memorial in a similar spirit of appreciation for the existing landscape.
Mr. McCrery asked about the street section, specifically why five lanes are proposed rather than six, and whether the centerline of the paved roadway corresponds to the L’Enfant axis to the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Rubin said the avenue’s historic centerline is focused not on the dome but on the apex of the pediment of the Capitol’s forecourt, and that the proposed centerline is very close to but not exactly on that axis, estimating an offset of no more than approximately four feet. Scott Archer, a landscape architect with David Rubin Land Collective, said each block along the avenue is slightly different in width between building facades, and that the exact alignment is driven in part by the narrower blocks.
Mr. McCrery said that while he understands that human beings do not always perceive precise alignments experientially, he strongly recommended that the centerline of the cartway be held explicitly and intentionally on the L’Enfant axis. He said Pennsylvania Avenue, as the nation’s principal civic avenue, should participate in the spirit and letter of the city’s mapping, and that departures from the established axis could set a problematic precedent for future interventions throughout the city. He suggested that adjusting the widths of the planting beds on either side of the roadway could achieve the correct centerline alignment.
Mr. McCrery asked about the pick-up and drop-off zone configuration, commenting that he is concerned that the meandering curbline may reduce the clarity of the street edge. He said he wishes to follow the design team’s strong preference for the fastigiate tree allée by insisting on the straight, uninterrupted continuity of the curb. Mr. Rubin said the team has been grappling with this issue, and that the pick-up and drop-off configuration is designed to serve the commercial opportunities along the Avenue and to accommodate tour buses, while being structured so each block’s drop-off zone is located toward the end of the block, enabling the narrowing of intersections and the elimination of center-mounted traffic signals, which currently require removal at substantial cost for every parade or major event. Mr. Archer said narrowing the cross-section to five lanes removes the need for traffic signals in the center of the Avenue, which substantially simplifies event and parade logistics. Mr. McCrery confirmed his understanding that achieving a five-lane section would allow traffic signals to be located only at the perimeter of each intersection, and he said he would not support any overhanging traffic signals. Secretary Luebke confirmed that overhanging signals are not currently permitted.
Mr. McCrery endorsed the decision to relocate bicycle traffic to a separated lane at sidewalk level on the south side of the avenue. He said the current bicycle infrastructure within the center of the avenue is unbecoming of the nation’s main street and that the sidewalk-level treatment, successfully used in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, would be the most appropriate approach. Mr. McCrery also asked for more information about the design of the poles shown.
Mr. Rubin confirmed that no structural or design development has yet occurred. Mr. McCrery recommended that the poles be designed to accommodate two or even three flags, in order to support diplomatic programming—such as flying the flag of a visiting head of state alongside the American flag—and he said this is a well-established tradition in Washington.
Ms. Patenaude, who had been briefly absent from the room, asked Mr. McCrery to summarize his position on the issue of fastigiate versus canopy trees. Mr. McCrery reiterated his strong preference for large canopy trees and his suggestion that the fastigiate allée instead be explored on Indiana Avenue. Ms. Patenaude said that while the historical reference to Jefferson’s original intent for a columnar allée is compelling, she is not comfortable with the visual character of the fastigiate option and does not see it as consistent with the character of Washington, D.C. She asked Mr. Rubin where such an arrangement could be seen in the United States. Mr. Rubin said that he could not cite a specific domestic example but that he would bring examples to the next presentation. He said his aspiration is that Pennsylvania Avenue not look like any other street in Washington and that the fastigiate arrangement provides a more democratic visual experience by giving pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike a view of the U.S. Capitol, rather than offering a binary choice between full shade and full sun. Ms. Patenaude reiterated her preference for the canopy trees.
Secretary Luebke said the Commission’s comments would be organized by topic in a letter. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
F. U.S. General Services Administration
CFA 16/APR/26-5, St. Elizabeths West Campus, U.S. Department of Homeland Security – Gate 7, 2701 Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue, SE. Construction of a new garage and associated landscape – Phase I. (Previous: CFA 17/JUL/25-2) Revised concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposal, submitted by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for a new parking garage at Gate 7 (formerly Gate 6) on the St. Elizabeths West Campus, which serves as the headquarters of DHS and several of its component agencies. He said that in July 2025, the Commission had approved a concept design for a new 1,200-space garage to be located in the northwest corner of the campus, at the base of the hill leading up to the Center Building. At that time, the Commission recommended using plantings and architectural elements to shape views from the historic campus plateau toward the city’s monumental core and to screen the boundary between the garage and the residential development planned immediately to the north at Barry Farm. Since then, the design team has made a number of changes in order to align with the current administration’s Executive Order on making federal architecture beautiful. He asked Kristi Tunstall Williams, director of architectural design services at the National Capital Region of GSA, to introduce the project.
Ms. Williams said the project was initially brought before the Commission just as the Executive Order (E.O.) on Classical architecture was issued. At that time, the Commission approved a concept that was more modern in character; subsequently, the project team consulted with the White House on the applicability of the E.O. to an infrastructure project on the campus. As the administration advised that the E.O. did apply to the project, the design team has revised the design to have a more traditional architectural expression; the siting, location, and massing have not changed. She noted that St. Elizabeths is a National Historic Landmark with many historic buildings, and that the team has sought to bridge the gap between these historic precedents, Section 106 historic preservation review requirements, and the E.O. on architecture. She asked Devin Carlson, associate principal at ZGF Architects, and Hallie Boyce of Olin Landscape Architects to present the concept design.
Mr. Carlson said the presentation would address campus context, site design drivers, and the garage facade. He said that as part of the 2020 amendment to the campus’s master plan, a goal of just under 2,500 parking stalls was established to support ongoing development, and that the need is immediate. The master plan calls for locating parking at the perimeter of the campus, which has led to the selection of Gate 7 at the northwest corner, down the western slope of the campus away from the central plateau and Center Building. He said an additional master plan goal is to preserve viewsheds from the plateau toward the city, so the design for the garage attempts to keep the structure as low as possible to maintain those views from above.
Ms. Boyce said that the St. Elizabeths campus sits within the Anacostia Hills, part of a larger topographic bowl surrounding the city, and that its elevated position affords views to the monumental core and the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. She said the plateau has been managed historically as an arboretum, with steep slopes mostly meadows and woodland. The garage site is approximately a quarter mile from the Center Building, separated by very steep terrain. She said the cultural landscape report was informative in understanding the site’s history: originally forested, the area was managed as an agrarian landscape beginning in the 1850s when the campus was established; by the late 1930s and 1940s, when self-sufficiency activities on the campus ended, the area was allowed to succeed to woodland. The 2020 master plan amendment envisioned the site as a utilitarian area that would set the building program into the slope and surround it with woodland plantings.
Ms. Boyce said the site involves a grade change of approximately one hundred forty feet from St. Elizabeths Road along Interstate 295 up to top of the plateau, with slopes averaging twenty-five percent. The site also includes an ephemeral stream, an existing water line, and required security layers to the north and west. She said the principal design goals for the landscape are to maintain the historic viewshed from the plateau overlook back to the city and rivers; to use plantings to screen the garage from the plateau, from the future Barry Farm Development to the north, and from Interstate 295; to manage stormwater while preserving the existing stream and wetland; to provide a shuttle loop for access to the top of the plateau; and to use a palette of native and adapted plantings, including species cited in the cultural landscape report, to encourage biodiversity and restore the tree canopy for the next fifty to one hundred years. She said the grade change from the plateau overlook to the top of the garage is approximately fifty-three feet, and from the garage down to St. Elizabeths Road is approximately thirty-two feet. She said the proposed planting palette draws from the Piedmont region, incorporating woodland, meadow, and riparian ecotones, and that trees designated in the cultural landscape report are incorporated throughout. Ground-plane plantings include grasses, perennials, and shrubs providing seasonal interest, habitat, infiltration, and erosion control as part of the overall stormwater management system.
Mr. Carlson said the revised architectural approach was guided by analysis of the E.O. on federal architecture. He said the team identified several key principles: reflecting regional heritage and the historic character of the site; representing the dignity, stability, and vigor associated with federal architecture; applying the traditional principles and vocabulary of Classical architecture across the elevations; and exploring the range of humanistic architecture recognized within the E.O. He said this analysis led the team to examine two broad categories of buildings in Washington, D.C.: the Neoclassical and Beaux-Arts buildings of the monumental core, characterized by strong hierarchical scale and formal composition; and the more humanistic traditional buildings with a warmer material palette and a somewhat different sense of scale and detail.
Mr. Carlson said the historic period of significance for the St. Elizabeths campus is from the 1850s through the 1950s, encompassing the Center Building and the buildings of Admin Row at the south lawn—primarily Gothic Revival and Renaissance Revival in style, built of red brick with careful articulation and the recurring use of a semicircular Roman arch—as well as a range of support and infrastructure buildings on the western slope of the campus, which share the warm red-brick palette but are more reserved in their architectural expression and more varied in their use of arched forms. He said the team looked to this latter group as the most relevant precedent for the garage, as it is considered a support building that should complement and not compete with the plateau buildings.
Mr. Carlson said the Gate 7 garage would be approximately the width of two Admin Row buildings and no taller than the main Admin Row building, Building 74. The proposed design for the primary western elevation, as well as the north and south elevations, is organized around a series of twenty-two-foot-wide arches, establishing a tripartite facade with a differentiated base, middle, and top, and maintaining rigor, order, and symmetry across the composition. The east elevation is fully embedded in the hillside and is not visible from any viewpoint. He said the arch form is intentionally shallower than the true Roman semicircular arch found on the plateau buildings, reflecting the garage’s supportive role. The brick is articulated differently at each zone of the facade—with a distinct coursing and orientation at the base, a corbelled arch detail at the jambs and head of each opening adding character and depth, and a different orientation at the parapet—using light and shadow to articulate the composition without overcomplication. Within the arch openings, the infill consists of a metal framing system with security mesh, which serves both to enclose the garage for security requirements at the campus perimeter and to break down the scale of the large openings. The garage would have five levels and be approximately fifty-seven feet tall. He said thin brick embedded on a precast panel structure is proposed, with full returns at the jambs rather than mitered corners, taking advantage of the economy of repetition that precast panelization offers.
Mr. Carlson presented views from multiple vantage points—including the plateau, Sweetgum Lane, the southwest access road, I-295, the Barry Farm edge, Frederick Douglass Bridge, and the Potomac River—illustrating how the building would be screened by existing and proposed plantings and would recede into the hillside. He noted that lighting is designed to avoid spillage into the adjacent Barry Farm, with all fixtures embedded within the parapet rather than mounted on poles at the top of the garage, and with a solid vehicular barrier on the north side to shield light through the security mesh. He also noted the presence of two existing small brick infrastructure buildings to the southwest of the site, which reinforce the materiality of the immediate context.
Chairman Cook commended the revised concept, commenting that it is among the most beautiful garage designs he has seen. He asked about the appearance and depth of the reveal between the precast panels. Mr. Carlson said the detail is still being developed, but the intention is a recessed perimeter course set back at least four inches from the panel face to conceal the joints.
Mr. McCrery agreed that the design is very well done and thoroughly considered, and that the landscape design is equally strong. He said the design is one he would be proud to have in his portfolio, and he noted that the embedded east elevation offers cost savings.
Chairman Cook asked whether the Commission is in the position to approve the revised concept. Secretary Luebke said that because the concept, including location, scale, and massing, was previously approved, the Commission is now acting on the revised design; given the Commission’s apparent strong support, it could approve the revised concept and delegate the final review to staff. He said delegation would allow the final review to be coordinated through staff, with the project reported out to the Commission; however, if the staff identifies details in the final design that are unsupportable, the project can be returned to the Commission for further review.
Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission approved the revised concept design and delegated the final review to the staff.
G. D.C. Department of General Services
CFA 16/APR/26-6, Burrville Elementary School, 801 Division Avenue, NE. New building and landscape. Concept. (Previous: CFA 19/FEB/26-5)
Secretary Luebke introduced the next project, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services (DGS) on behalf of D.C. Public Schools, a second concept design for the construction of a new building and associated landscape for Burrville Elementary School, located in the Deanwood neighborhood of Northeast Washington. He said that at its meeting of February 2026, the Commission did not take an action on the initial concept proposal and provided comments on the development of the design. While the Commission had expressed support for the general layout, massing, and proposed glazing, it urged the D.C. Government to align the design more closely with the federal directive “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again” by incorporating Classical, traditional, or regional elements. The Commission further advised revising the design to include traditional materials and detailing informed by a closer study of D.C. public schools and civic buildings, to achieve a more appropriate and contextual expression. He said the project team has reworked the design significantly, modifying the facades, key volumes, and the material palette to impart a more traditional character that is highly responsive to the Commission’s advice. He introduced Tom Henderson, project manager with DGS, who asked architect Omar Calderón Santiago of Perkins Eastman to present the design.
Mr. Santiago said the presentation would address site context, as well as precedent studies drawn from both the built context and the broader history of public schools in the District of Columbia, with particular focus on early twentieth-century school architecture. He said the team examined models from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and studied material refinement and detailing to place the proposed building within a recognizable lineage of civic and educational architecture in Washington. He said that the Commission’s previous support for the layout and general disposition of the program was appreciated, and that the team’s work since the last review has focused on elevating the architectural character of the design.
Mr. Santiago said that the school is located near the eastern boundary of the District, and that the site has a significant change in topography of approximately thirty-five to forty feet. The existing building is a two-story structure, nestled into the hillside, making the parking lot the first element visible from Division Avenue, NE, and the main entrance difficult to locate. James Place is a quieter neighborhood street that will continue to facilitate student pick-up and drop-off, as will Hayes Street, a one-way street running toward Division Avenue.
Mr. Santiago said that the surrounding residential context consists mostly of two-story duplex buildings, with a few single-family homes along James Place and Hayes Street, and that the design approach is informed by the principle that civic buildings should be more formal gestures within the city against a background of residential fabric. He said nearby civic buildings, including Tabernacle Baptist Church, Contee AME Zion Church, and the Strand Theater—a 1920s theater built to serve the African American community—share material choices the design seeks to emulate. He noted that the church buildings and the theater address the street and make an effort to turn the corner, qualities the team has sought to incorporate.
Mr. Santiago then presented precedent studies drawn from the history of D.C. public school architecture. He said that in the late nineteenth century, the common typology of the four-room-per-floor school emerged, allowing differentiated learning spaces for multiple grade levels. These buildings were typically two to three stories, with the current School Without Walls at George Washington University serving as a prime example. He said that in the early twentieth century, coinciding with the McMillan Plan, there was a push for more beautiful schools to serve the District’s growing population. He said the elementary school model developed by Albert Harris, the municipal architect of the 1920s, introduced the concept of the “extensible school,” consisting of classroom wings flanking a central pavilion housing shared program elements, such as the cafeteria and library, with entry through a courtyard formed by the wings. He said variations of this model can be seen in Stoddert Elementary, Capitol Hill Montessori, Lafayette Elementary, and Bunker Hill Elementary—all of which share a tripartite composition organized around a central entrance pavilion, with notable variation in stylistic expression across the examples. He noted that his firm renovated Stoddert in 2010 and added a second wing, recessing the addition to honor the original courtyard sequence.
Mr. Santiago said that based on these precedents, the team codified the organizing principles: two classroom wings framing a central entrance pavilion; a loggia extending from the pavilion to receive students; recessed hyphen linkages between the pavilion and wings so that the entrance reads as a figure against the background; and wings that meet the street with an axial, symmetrical facade treatment. He said one fundamental difference from the historical models is that students today arrive by multiple transportation methods, and the design is therefore organized so that each arrival experience feels equally elevated and ceremonial.
Mr. Santiago said the proposed building has four principal facades. On Division Avenue, a central loggia extends across the face of the building, flanked by the two classroom wings in a composition that emphasizes the entrance through a forced-perspective effect. The loggia is elevated a few steps above the street to convey the civic importance of the school, with an accessible path to one side graded gently enough to avoid the need for railings, preserving a cleaner arrival sequence. The gymnasium mass is treated with a lower connecting wall that matches the height of the adjacent wing, creating a unified enclosure around the courtyard; the gymnasium facade itself includes centrally located windows with a pier element that is evocative of, but secondary in order to, the main loggia. On the rear of the school, the composition mirrors the Division Avenue facade, with a two-story loggia and flanking walls creating the same forced-perspective approach to the entrance. An outdoor covered space is incorporated to replicate a covered outdoor area valued by the current school community. On the academic wing facing the street, a stair and extended learning space animate the facade, and the open stair configuration, made possible by the building’s modest scale, allows for greater transparency and openness on both the interior and exterior.
Mr. Santiago presented elevation drawings illustrating the overall character of the building, and a landscape plan showing the disposition of trees reinforcing the outdoor rooms created on both the Division Avenue side and the rear of the building.
Chairman Cook commented that the design is impressive and that the project team has clearly taken the Commission’s instructions to heart. He asked whether there were additional comments from the Commission members.
Mr. McCrery said the work represents excellent design and sets a new baseline standard for public school design in Washington, D.C. He said the Commission’s insistence on a higher standard at the previous review has been made entirely worthwhile by the high quality of the revised design, and he commended the project team. Mr. Taylor agreed that the design is exceptional.
Secretary Luebke confirmed that this is the second concept submission, and said that if the Commission is interested in approving the design, it could also delegate the final approval to staff, with the understanding that staff would return the project to the Commission if the final design were to depart from the direction established at concept. Chairman Cook said the project team had earned that delegation. Mr. McCrery concurred, noting that the Commission would continue to observe the progress of the design.
Chairman Cook suggested a motion to approve the revised concept design and to delegate the final review to the staff; upon second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission adopted this action.
H. U.S. Mint
CFA 16/APR/26-7, 2027 American Innovation One Dollar Coin Program. Designs for the eleventh set of coins: Kansas, Nevada, Oregon, and West Virginia. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the submission of candidate reverse alternatives for four state coins to be issued in 2027 as part of the American Innovation $1 Coin Program. He said the program, which began in 2018 and would continue through 2032, is for a non-circulating series honoring both innovations and innovators, with a coin from each state, the District of Columbia, and the five American territories. He said there is a common obverse for all coins in the series—an adaptation of the Statue of Liberty design used on the Presidential $1 Coin—that was established in prior years and is not under consideration. Each reverse alternative features the name of the state or territory and an illustration emblematic of a significant innovation, innovator, or group of innovators from that state, as well as the inscription “United States of America.” He said the submission includes candidates for four states—Kansas, Nevada, Oregon, and West Virginia—with a single established theme for each coin and approximately ten to twelve alternative designs presented for each. He asked Roger Vasquez, a senior design specialist in the Office of Design Management of the U.S. Mint, to present the designs.
Kansas. Mr. Vasquez said the concept for the Kansas coin is to celebrate the innovator Jack St. Clair Kilby, considered one of the greatest electrical engineers of all time. He said Kilby co-invented the integrated circuit, now known as the microchip, which is the foundation of modern electronics. He said Kilby was raised in Great Bend, Kansas, and that a formative experience witnessing his father use a ham radio to assess damage from a severe ice storm sparked his fascination with electronics, leading him to study electrical engineering and eventually to join Texas Instruments in 1958. He said that within a year, Kilby conceived and demonstrated a small, self-contained, monolithic integrated circuit fabricated from a single piece of semiconductor material approximately the size of a fingernail—an achievement no engineer had previously accomplished.
Mr. Vasquez presented nine designs and one variant, noting that reverse #4 is the primary preference of the Governor’s Office of the State of Kansas; that reverses #7 and #8 are the two primary preferences of Ms. Kilby, Jack Kilby’s daughter; and that reverse #9A is the family’s secondary preference. He noted that reverses #9 and #9A are versions of each other.
Mr. Cook asked that the family’s preferred designs be displayed again for comparison. After reviewing reverses #7, #8, #9, and #9A, the Commission focused its discussion on reverses #9 and #9A. Mr. Taylor said he considers reverse #9 to be strong due to its use of a profile in the tradition of coin design, as well as its clean negative-and-positive space composition. He also expressed a preference for reverse #9A, as the integrated circuit is more legible and does not overlap with the inscription “America” to the same degree as in reverse #9.
Upon a motion by Mr. Taylor with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission recommended approval of reverse #9A with the comments provided.
Nevada. Mr. Vasquez said the Nevada coin concept celebrates the invention of copper-riveted clothing in the nineteenth century, which transformed workwear and laid the foundation for the modern blue jean. He said that in the 1870s, Nevada’s economy was driven primarily by gold and silver mining and the timber and railroad industries that supported them, and that both workers and employers sought more durable work pants. Jacob W. Davis, a tailor who had settled in Reno, Nevada, purchased fabric from San Francisco merchant Levi Strauss and applied copper rivets—a technique he had previously used to reinforce horse blankets—to a pair of trousers to create a stronger garment for one of his customers. He said Davis wrote to Levi Strauss & Co. in 1872 to share his invention and propose a joint patent, and that in 1873 a patent was granted to both Davis and the Strauss company for an improvement in fastening pocket openings, which became the basis for blue jeans.
Mr. Vasquez presented eight reverse alternatives, noting that reverse #1 is the primary preference of the Governor’s Office of Nevada, and that reverses #2A and #4 were also well received by the state, though they did not rise to the level of a stated preference.
Mr. Cook said he finds reverse #4 to be amusing, and Mr. McCrery commented that it has a nostalgic, postcard-like quality. Mr. Taylor expressed a preference for reverse #1, noting that it appears to align aesthetically with the character of other coins in the series, which tend to be active and dynamic in composition, and that it also has the support of the Governor’s Office. He added that since these are collectibles and not circulating coins, the designs could have a livelier character.
Upon a motion by Mr. Taylor with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission recommended approval of reverse #1 with the comments provided.
Oregon. Mr. Vasquez said the Oregon coin would honor Beverly Cleary, the celebrated children’s author. He said that reverse #6 is the primary preference of both the Governor’s Office of Oregon and Mr. Cleary, Beverly Cleary’s son, and that reverse #6A is a variant of that alternative.
Mr. Taylor expressed initial interest in reverse #7, citing the quality of the subject’s expression and its similarity in character to another coin in the series. Ms. Harris asked whether the family’s preference was reverse #6, which Mr. Vasquez confirmed, noting that the Governor’s Office shares that preference. Mr. Taylor said he is comfortable supporting reverse #6 in light of the aligned family and gubernatorial preferences. Chairman Cook thanked Ms. Harris for raising the point and asked her to make a motion.
Upon a motion by Ms. Harris with second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission recommended approval of reverse #6.
West Virginia. Mr. Vasquez said the West Virginia coin honors the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope, located at the Green Bank Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia. He said the telescope is the world’s largest fully steerable radio telescope, using radio signals to produce high-resolution images and maps of the cosmos. He said the telescope site was selected because the surrounding valley is naturally shielded from radio emissions by mountains, the climate is dry, and the sparse population produces low levels of radio interference. He said the town of Green Bank lies within the National Radio Quiet Zone, which regulates devices that emit radio waves to limit interference with the telescope. Mr. McCrery asked whether the telescope is named after Senator Robert C. Byrd, which Mr. Vasquez confirmed.
Mr. Vasquez presented the eight design alternatives, noting that reverse #1 is the primary preference of both the Governor’s Office of West Virginia and the Green Bank Observatory.
Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Chairman Cook, the Commission recommended approval of reverse #1.
At the conclusion of the formal agenda, Chairman Cook thanked Ms. Patenaude for her gift of a black cap embroidered with the phrase “MAKE DESIGN GREAT AGAIN.” He said the hat honors Joe Gebbia—a friend of the National Monuments Foundation, having received its Millennium Candler Justice Prize—who is the founder of the company Airbnb and the chief design officer of the United States of America. Mr. Cook said everyone should get one of the hats and that the video should be sent to Mr. Gebbia.
Mr. McCrery expressed his appreciation for the work of the Commission’s staff, which he characterized as magnificent and professional.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary