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. Mary Anne Carter
Hon. Chamberlain Harris
Hon. Pamela Hughes Patenaude
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 16 April meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the April 2026 meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance, and that no questions or comments had been received. Upon a motion by Ms. Carter with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the minutes.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings: 18 June, 16 July, and 17 September 2026. He said that these dates are consistent with the calendar published at the beginning of the year, and that there would be no Commission meeting in August. He added that the calendar for 2027 would be presented in July. Ms. Carter said that 18 June is also the load-in date for the Great American State Fair on the National Mall, and that traffic conditions might be a consideration in planning for that meeting. Secretary Luebke thanked her for the information.
C. Anniversary of the establishment of the Commission of Fine Arts, 17 May 1910, and the Shipstead-Luce Act, 16 May 1930. Secretary Luebke said the month of May is regularly a time for anniversaries at the Commission. He said that 17 May marked the 116th anniversary of the establishment of the Commission of Fine Arts, and that the 96th anniversary of the Shipstead-Luce Act, enacted on 16 May 1930, had likewise been observed.
D. Report on the FY 2026 National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs (NCACA) grant program. Secretary Luebke said that at the end of April, the NCACA review panel—consisting of CFA Chairman Cook, CFA member Mary Ann Carter in her role as the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, and a representative of the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities—met to consider thirty applications for the NCACA grant program. The NCACA program was established by Congress in 1986 and has been administered by the Commission since 1989. He said the program supports medium- to large-sized arts institutions based in the District of Columbia that are dedicated to the performance, exhibition, or presentation of the arts at a professional level, with grants directed toward operational and administrative expenses. He reported that the panel approved the 28 returning organizations and did not approve two reapplying organizations, which were also not approved in 2025. He said the grant funds, allocated based on the statutory formula, are expected to be disbursed in early June.
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 that the consent calendar includes nine items and that no changes had been made to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes fifteen items; there is also one case that will be considered on the agenda (SL 26-100). She said that two cases are being held open for review in a future month (SL 26-087 and SL 26-097) and that staff is waiting for supplemental materials for eight cases. She said that staff expects to continue working with the applicants to resolve minor issues, and that the Commission’s approval of the appendix would allow these projects to move forward. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Carter, the Commission approved the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Berger said that the appendix includes forty items, and that there were no changes to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.D.1 and II.D.2. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without presentations.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 21/MAY/26-3, Whittier Elementary School, 6201 5th Street, NW. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. (Previous: CFA 19/MAR/26-6) Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the second concept application for renovations and additions to Whittier Elementary School, noting that the Commission members had reviewed the submission prior to the meeting and found it to be responsive to their previous comments. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery, the Commission voted to approve the concept design. Secretary Luebke confirmed that the project would return for review at the final design stage.
2. CFA 21/MAY/26-4, Charles Hart Middle School, 601 Mississippi Avenue, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. (Previous: CFA 19/FEB/26-8) Final. Secretary Luebke introduced the final design submission for renovations and additions to Charles Hart Middle School, and he noted the Commission’s consensus to approve the project without a formal presentation. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission voted to approve the final design.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.1.
B. Department of the Interior / Executive Office of the President
CFA 21/MAY/26-1, Memorial Circle, George Washington Memorial Parkway. New monumental arch. (Previous: CFA 16/APR/26-1) Revised concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the revised 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 is the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery. He said the proposed location lies roughly halfway between the Lincoln Memorial and the Hemicycle, which now houses the Women in Military Service for America Memorial, with Arlington House beyond.
Secretary Luebke said that the Commission reviewed and approved the initial concept at its 16 April meeting, providing several comments for the development of the design. These comments included the recommendation to create secondary open archways within the legs of the central arch to make it visually more open, particularly to oblique views; the suggestion to remove the grouping of monumental winged sculptures from the top of the arch; the recommendation to simplify the proposed sculptural program generally, including the keystones, friezes, panels, and recumbent lions at the base of the arch; and the request to provide more information on the proposed art program and an extended site model that includes the Mall and Capitol. The Commission also recommended changing pedestrian access from tunnels to at-grade crosswalks, simplifying the approaches to the plazas surrounding the arch, and refining the design of the traffic circle with consideration of using paving cobbles or other materials to manage vehicular access around the circle.
Secretary Luebke noted that the project team has addressed many of these issues in the revised concept design and has provided additional information about the program and spatial arrangement of the arch interior. A new physical model has been created, extending from the Capitol to the ridge of Arlington House, and additional views have been generated to study the project’s impact on viewsheds. He asked Nicolas Charbonneau, principal at Harrison Design, to present the revised concept design.
Mr. Charbonneau said the project is intended to create an enduring, grand, and noble gateway into the city, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the founding of the nation. He said the proposed site continues to be on Columbia Island and within Memorial Circle, an existing 300’-wide grass-covered area within the traffic circle at the Memorial Avenue corridor, which forms a mile-long axial composition from the Lincoln Memorial to the Women in Military Service for America Memorial. Mr. Charbonneau provided the relative elevations of the surrounding monuments as requested at the previous review: the Capitol Building sits at 88’ above sea level and is 288’ tall, for a total of 376’ above sea level. The Washington Monument base is 44’ above sea level and the structure is 555’ tall, for a total of nearly 600’ above sea level. The Lincoln Memorial is 43’ above sea level and 99’ tall, for a total of 142’ above sea level. Arlington House is 171’ above sea level and 47’ tall, for a total of 218’ above sea level. The proposed arch at Memorial Circle would be 25’ above sea level; the main structure, excluding the sculpture, would be 166’ tall, for a total of 191’; with statuary above, the total height would be 250’, or 275’ above sea level.
Mr. Charbonneau said that while the siting of the arch within Memorial Circle has not changed, significant revisions have been made to visitor access. The concept of tunnel access has been eliminated based on the Commission’s concerns regarding security, safety, and aesthetics. The raised platform and associated steps and ramps have also been removed. Instead, the arch would be situated at the current grade of Memorial Circle, with access exclusively via at-grade crossings. He asked Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff for policy at the Department of the Interior, to present the proposed changes to the surrounding pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
Mr. Wischer identified Columbia Island, the proposed arch location, and the surrounding traffic circle as under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service (NPS). He said that NPS, working with the Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center and the Federal Highway Administration, has conducted detailed traffic modeling and simulations to analyze the impacts of different traffic flow scenarios, prioritizing pedestrian and vehicular safety and the efficient movement of traffic. The modeling found that no major impacts on traffic traveling to and from Arlington National Cemetery, including funeral processions, would result from the project.
Mr. Wischer said visitors would access the site at two points along Memorial Avenue, directly opposite the arch openings, in two stages: first crossing between the north and south sidewalks of Memorial Avenue and Arlington Memorial Bridge to intermediate triangular refuge areas, and then proceeding from those refuge areas to the center of the circle. Traffic would be paused periodically using coordinated signalization to allow pedestrian crossings with standard red-yellow-green signals for vehicles and red-stop/green-walk signals for pedestrians. All vehicle lanes would be designed to accommodate motor coaches as the typical design vehicle, with mountable curbs provided for larger occasional vehicles. He noted that all existing vehicle movements would remain unchanged with one exception: northbound traffic from Washington Boulevard would not be permitted into the circle and would instead be required to turn right onto Arlington Memorial Bridge. Pick-up and drop-off would be prohibited within the circle and would instead occur along Memorial Avenue. He also described coordination efforts with Arlington National Cemetery, including ensuring adequate motor coach access to the cemetery garage and along Memorial Avenue, and the establishment of designated rideshare areas with a geofenced restriction around Memorial Circle to discourage rideshare activity within the circle itself. He offered to provide additional traffic simulations and modeling after the meeting, including scenarios for construction-period traffic patterns.
Mr. Charbonneau then presented the other design changes. He said the platform, stairs, and ramps have been removed and replaced with a seat wall and a limited number of bollards serving as vehicular barriers. The flanking lion sculptures and their pedestals have also been removed. The keystone at the center of the main arch, formerly an eagle’s head, is now shown as a Classical scroll. Granite has been selected as the exterior cladding material, chosen for its strength and anticipated lifespan and for its consistency with the architectural elements along Memorial Avenue, most of which are also composed of granite.
Mr. Charbonneau said President Trump had considered the Commission’s suggestion to remove the sculptural figures from the roof but decided to keep them. Mr. Charbonneau said that the intent of the arch is to celebrate America’s 250 years of greatness for posterity, and that it would be distinct from monuments such as the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, which have a strong funerary character. He noted that the Winged Liberty figure, also intended to represent Winged Victory, would serve as one bookend of the great axis leading to the Capitol dome and its surmounting Statue of Freedom, creating a relationship between the seat of American governance and the nation’s triumphs. Regarding the side elevations, Mr. Charbonneau said that the depth of the arch has been increased from 81’ to 90’, and that panels have been added, flanking the lower arched niches. He noted that the Commission’s suggestion to consider openings within the arch had been explored, but that the President had elected not to adopt that revision in order to preserve wall surface area for sculpture. He said the exterior walls would be cast-in-place concrete and clad in granite veneer. A 5’- to 6’-thick concrete mat foundation would support the structure, which would in turn bear on driven piles. A recent geotechnical investigation found bedrock approximately 70’ below grade; the piles would be driven to this bedrock.
Mr. Charbonneau said the floor plans have been developed from the diagrammatic versions previously presented. On the ground floor, visitors would enter on the south side of the interior of the arch, passing through ticketing and security before reaching a stair and elevator lobby, where a grand circular stair and elevators would bring them to the gallery level. The gallery level would accommodate multiple program spaces, potentially including a café, gift shop, and informational displays. From this level, elliptical spiral stairs and a central elevator would provide access to the observation deck above, via a small circulation hall inside the main statue’s base and doors to the rooftop viewing platform. Two emergency egress stairs would be located at the north and south ends, below the eagle statues. NPS staff offices, break rooms, restrooms, and mechanical, electrical, and fire protection spaces would be distributed throughout the back-of-house areas on multiple floors. Visitors would descend via similar stairs and elevators on the north leg and exit on the north side of the interior of the arch.
Mr. Charbonneau noted that the elimination of the previously proposed elevated plaza would improve views toward Arlington National Cemetery, and he presented a series of photographic simulations showing anticipated views from primary locations along the memorial and monumental axes, both with and without the arch. These included views from the east porch of Arlington House, the Hemicycle, Arlington Memorial Bridge, Lincoln Memorial Circle, the west porch of the Lincoln Memorial, the west side of the Washington Monument, and the western side of Capitol Hill. He noted that the direct axial view from Memorial Bridge would be partially obscured by existing foliage. He also presented panoramic views from the arch’s proposed observation deck.
Mr. Charbonneau concluded with a list of major world capitals with triumphal arches, including the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, the India Gate in New Delhi, the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, the Wellington Arch in London, the Victory Arch in Baghdad, the Arch of the Cinquantenaire in Brussels, the Rua Augusta Arch in Lisbon, the Arco de la Victoria in Madrid, the Arch of Constantine and five others in Rome, and the Red Gate in Moscow. He also noted that additional images, documenting proposed monumental architecture on and near Memorial Circle in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, could be made available to the Commission as a supplemental document.
Chairman Cook thanked Mr. Charbonneau and observed that the list had omitted the Millennium Gate in Atlanta. Mr. Charbonneau acknowledged the omission, noting that he had been focused on capital cities, but that the Millennium Gate was indeed on the list. Chairman Cook then welcomed questions from the Commission members.
Ms. Patenaude asked about the occupancy limit inside the arch. Mr. Charbonneau said NPS is currently contemplating 80 visitors per hour, comparable to the Washington Monument. He noted that the structure could accommodate more, but that staffing levels would determine the working figure.
Ms. Carter expressed appreciation for the removal of some of the adornments, including the lions and pedestals, commenting that simpler is better in this context. She observed that the headstones in Arlington National Cemetery are simple white markers, and that eliminating a number of the adornments from the arch had been helpful given the somber character of the corridor between two historically significant places, one of which is hallowed ground. She encouraged the design team to continue to consider the simplicity of those grave markers as the design progresses.
Secretary Luebke noted that, given the volume of public testimony to follow, the Commission’s discussion should remain primarily in the form of questions, with their comments to be given after the testimony.
Mr. Cook asked about the geotechnical conditions at the site, citing on his own experience designing the Newington Cropsey Museum in New York, where piles were sunk approximately 90’ before encountering the collapsed Croton Viaduct. He asked how deep bedrock had been found. Mr. Charbonneau confirmed that two borings had been taken and both revealed bedrock at approximately 70’ below the surface. He noted that the soil conditions on Columbia Island are poor, as the island was created through dredging of the Potomac River, but that bedrock was not at an excessive depth.
Mr. McCrery said he understands the response to the prior suggestion to open the arch legs, given the desire to populate all arch surfaces with sculpture. He observed, however, that the result is a very spare wall surface at the interior of the arch, noting the large wall area surrounding the doorways. He suggested that this area seems to invite some treatment, even if only a simple frame, and he proposed that inscriptions, such as those in the side chambers of the Lincoln Memorial, could be considered as a meaningful option for these surfaces. He asked whether the rendering indicated both smooth and rusticated portions of stone on the exterior surface. Mr. Charbonneau replied that the joints in the rendering might be slightly overemphasized, and that the intent is for a more uniformly dressed surface.
Mr. McCrery asked whether there is an iconographic sculptural program in development, and he requested identification of the areas of the arch designated for sculpture. Mr. Charbonneau indicated the framed and arched panels on all four elevations as locations that would potentially receive bas-relief and other sculpture. Mr. McCrery asked when the sculptural program would be developed and whether a sculptor had been identified; Mr. Charbonneau replied that he cannot give an exact date but that the administration is working on developing a scheme and that presentations on the sculptural program would need to be made separately. Mr. McCrery said that for a work of architecture of this type, the sculptural program is a key visual component, and he asked when the Commission could expect to see it. Mr. Charbonneau confirmed that it would be presented in a future submission.
Chairman Cook then invited public testimony.
Secretary Luebke said that since its 16 April meeting, the Commission had received about 600 additional comments from the public, who identified themselves as being from the District of Columbia and approximately 40 states. He noted that of these comments, roughly 99.5 percent were in opposition; three were in support, though two of those also proposed their own significant changes to the design. He summarized the principal themes of opposition: concern that the arch will obstruct the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, raised by nearly half of respondents; the assertion that the arch disrespects the cemetery and military sacrifice; concerns about waste of public funds; objections to the design as aesthetically incompatible; characterizations of the arch as authoritarian or as a reflection of presidential vanity; the view that it is a political rather than a national commemorative work; concerns about the absence of Congressional authorization; objections to the scale; and concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety.
Secretary Luebke read the one letter giving straightforward support for the project. The letter, from Chester Kratt, a 15-year veteran of the Global War on Terror and a D.C. resident, states support for the construction of the Victory Arch within Memorial Circle, describing the Neoclassical design as fitting and noting that the skyline of the capital has evolved continuously over 250 years. Mr. Kratt endorsed the proposed design, placement, and creation of the Victory Arch as an enhancement to the beauty of the capital city.
Secretary Luebke then read one representative letter in opposition, from Robert Murphy of Alexandria, Virginia. He said that Mr. Murphy characterizes the Lincoln Memorial–Arlington Cemetery axis as a deliberate historic narrative representing national reconciliation, and that he argues that introducing a new monumental structure into that space risks fracturing that narrative and diminishing its meaning. He said Mr. Murphy urges the Commission to preserve the integrity of the historic axis and reject the placement of the Victory Arch at Memorial Circle.
Secretary Luebke noted that the hundreds of additional messages received are part of the public record and available to the Commission and the public, though it was not possible to convey the full range of commentary in the time available.
Mr. McCrery offered a comment before the in-person public testimony commenced. He expressed the hope that the historical images of arch and bridge designs proposed for Memorial Circle over the preceding centuries would be made more generally known to the public, so that it would be understood that the current proposal is part of a long tradition of designs acknowledging the appropriateness of substantial commemorative or memorial architecture at this site. He said that many members of the public believed, based on their experience of the landscape as it has existed for 100 years, that the site had always been intended to remain open, whereas in fact there is a long tradition of proposals of this character. He suggested the Commission might post this information on its website. Secretary Luebke acknowledged that the images had not been provided in advance, and he said that the Commission staff would post them.
Chairman Cook suggested that it would be helpful to display the historical images on the table in the meeting room so that members of the audience could examine them more closely. He commented that Washington is not a static city, that it had grown and evolved from a city of grand avenues ending in nothing, that the Mall has now been closed to additional commemoration, and that the current administration is seeking to open new opportunities for Americans going forward into the next 250 years. He noted that he had personally been involved 26 years earlier in a millennium project for an arch at this same location, a project that was not pursued after the September 11th attack on the Pentagon. He concluded that the proposed building is elegant.
The Commission then heard institutional public testimony.
Elizabeth Merritt, deputy general counsel at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, testified in opposition. She said that after reviewing the revised concept plans, the National Trust remains extremely concerned about the location, height, scale, and design of the proposed arch. She cited the Commemorative Works Act’s requirements that commemorative works not interfere with or encroach on existing works and that they protect open space, existing public views, and cultural and natural resources. She said these criteria warranted rejection of the proposed location and design. She also noted that the Commemorative Works Act requires Congressional authorization, which has not been obtained. She observed that the modifications made since the April meeting are minimal, most notably that the 68’ sculpture at the top of the arch has not been removed or reduced despite the Commission’s prior advice. She said the proposed arch would obscure the symbolic and designed visual relationships between the Lincoln Memorial, Arlington Memorial Bridge, and Arlington House, relationships she described as representing post-Civil War reconciliation. She said the proposed arch would overwhelm the Lincoln Memorial and would be inconsistent with the solemn historic character of Arlington National Cemetery, a resting place for 400,000 veterans and their families. She noted that Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act had not yet been initiated, that such consultation was required to be completed prior to project approval, and that the collaborative review process could result in substantial modifications to the proposal. She urged the Commission to defer any decision pending the results of the Section 106 consultation.
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the D.C. Preservation League, testified in opposition, aligning her organization’s position with that of the National Trust and the Cultural Landscape Foundation, and noted that she is daughter of a veteran buried at Arlington National Cemetery. She traced the significance of the Lincoln Memorial–Arlington House view corridor, describing it as a visual axis representing the post-Civil War reconciliation between the North and the South that had been intentionally established by the McMillan Commission in the early twentieth century and specifically highlighted in the Lincoln Memorial Commission Report of December 5, 1912. She quoted from that report’s description of a Memorial Bridge directly connecting the Lincoln Memorial to the ground containing those who gave the last full measure of devotion, characterizing it as a “striking symbol of reunion.” She noted that the site of the proposed arch had historically been a tidal mud flat that did not exist during L’Enfant’s time, and that the Army Corps of Engineers shaped the island through later dredging. She said that forcing a conceptual eighteenth-century gateway onto a twentieth-century landscape shaped by post-Civil War design choices is inappropriate, and that the best preservation required honoring not only original city plans but also the city’s subsequent historical evolution.
Nord Wennerstrom, director of communications for the Cultural Landscape Foundation, a national educational and advocacy organization, testified in opposition. He provided background on the role of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. in shaping the monumental core of Washington, D.C., noting Olmsted’s service as a founding member of the Commission of Fine Arts, his role as principal author of the Organic Act creating the National Park Service, his membership on successive national planning commissions, and his design of the White House Grounds. Mr. Wennerstrom quoted from a 1999 National Park Service Cultural Landscape Report describing Olmsted’s unique influence over the development of the Lincoln Memorial grounds. He also cited the history of bridge designs considered for the Potomac crossing, including an 1886 design by Paul Pelz featuring Renaissance Revival-style towers, a competition-winning 1899 design by Edward Casey featuring triumphal arches on piers, and the eventual design by William Mitchell Kendall of McKim, Mead & White, noting that the entire elaborate sculptural program originally envisioned for the present bridge—including seated presidential figures, reclining statues, and 40 allegorical statues—had been eliminated by the Commission of Fine Arts. He quoted a letter from Olmsted to Secretary of War Newton D. Baker concerning the 1899 bridge design, in which Olmsted concluded that the towers of that design were so large and elaborate as to compete with the Lincoln Memorial, and that to not eliminate them would be like a slap in the face to the Lincoln Memorial and the McMillan Plan. Mr. Wennerstrom said that this precedent is directly applicable to the proposed arch and offered the words and precedent of a founding CFA member as valuable guidance.
Secretary Luebke then called individual members of the public to address the Commissions. Seven individuals on the sign-up list—Cheryl English, Julie Hanson Swenson, Teri Gentry, Caterina Panos, Karen Buhler, Deborah Forbes, and Megan Tulley—did not respond when called.
Susan Douglas then testified in opposition. She expressed concern about the speed with which the project was moving through the approval process. She said that the current presidential administration has admitted that it has no plans to seek congressional authorization and intends to rely on a 1925 authorization that included a pair of 166’-tall columns proposed for the space but never constructed; she characterized this as a specious use of a 100-year-old loophole. She cited public statements by President Trump at a fundraising dinner suggesting the arch was being built for him personally. She said that the arch’s placement at Memorial Circle would be a desecration of a space near which 400,000 soldiers and their families were buried, and that at 250’ the arch would be more than double the height of the Lincoln Memorial and would block the historic sightline between Arlington House and the Lincoln Memorial. She noted that the height had led the Federal Aviation Administration to initiate a review of possible flight safety risks given the arch’s proximity to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, a review she said could take up to nine months. She noted ongoing soil testing and boring at the site in preparation for construction, advising that the dredged alluvial soil at Columbia Island would require extensive and expensive foundational supports. She also cited ongoing litigation related to the arch project. She urged the Commission to oppose or defer any decision on the project.
Gary Langston testified in opposition. He identified himself as a 29-year Army veteran whose parents are interred at Arlington. His wife is also a veteran who served in the Persian Gulf War. He asked the Commission to consider additional view simulations not included in the presentation, specifically views from the Tomb of the Unknowns and from Section 66 of Arlington National Cemetery. He noted that he and his son had visited the site two nights prior, and he observed that the proposed design does not include nighttime views of what the arch would look like, particularly from the D.C. side looking across to Arlington House, which he said was one of the more breathtaking views, especially at night. He said he strongly questions the underlying purpose of the arch as a monument rather than a memorial, and that anything not respectful of the hallowed character of the grounds and the intent of national unity is in conflict with the original intent and the present meaning of the site.
Danilo Augusto Feliciano identified himself as a veteran and testified in opposition. He offered a theological and philosophical commentary on the design, citing the second commandment, the character of the proposed statuary, and the economic and social conditions facing many Americans; he read passages from the Books of Exodus and Daniel. He concluded by thanking the Commission for its work and for its love of country.
Alison Hoagland, professor emerita of history and historic preservation and author of six books on American architectural history, testified in opposition. She said that the excessive size of the arch would obscure the reciprocal views between the Lincoln Memorial, across Memorial Bridge and through Arlington National Cemetery to Arlington House, a vista designed to help heal the wounds of the Civil War. She said that constructing an arch at a site intended to reconcile and heal rather than to celebrate triumph would violate Lincoln’s desire to bind up the nation’s wounds. She said that the height of 250’ appears to have been chosen to coincide with the nation’s anniversary rather than as a reasoned assessment of what would be appropriate for the site. She urged the Commission to reconsider what would best serve the site.
Lu Hou testified on behalf of Jim Snyder and John Duke, a group of city planners and urban designers, each with more than 40 years of experience. He said the group is focused on three technical concerns and had submitted drawings and a letter to the Commission. First, regarding the height of the building mass, he suggested that the total height of 250’ could be maintained by reducing the building height and adding a monumental flagpole on top, thereby reducing the perceived bulk while preserving the symbolic number. Second, regarding the site plan, he suggested that the pedestrian access design, which would require crossing streets twice to reach the circle, could be improved, and that greater thought should be given to the best angles and experiences for visitors photographing and approaching the memorial. Third, he noted that Mr. Snyder has a personal connection to Arlington National Cemetery and wishes the project to serve as a national memorial honoring all those buried or memorialized there.
Following the conclusion of the listed speakers, three additional members of the public came forward.
Kevin Wheeler testified in opposition, noting she had also testified at the April meeting. She raised a procedural concern that the time for the hearing had not been clearly broadcast on the Commission’s website. She reiterated her view that the scale of the arch is too large, the ornamentation is excessive for its context, and the site is inappropriate. She compared the arch’s height to that of the Brooklyn Bridge, and she noted that the Arc de Triomphe in Paris is only 164’ tall. She questioned the National Park Service’s capacity to manage and maintain additional public projects given current resource constraints, citing conditions of broken glass and trash she has observed along West Potomac Park and at Montrose Park in Georgetown. She expressed concern that public comments submitted in opposition had not been substantively addressed at the prior meeting, and she urged the Commission to oppose the project or defer a decision. She also said the project should go before Congress, as required by law, and should be subject to a more transparent public process, including disclosure of donors.
John Ayers, a 40-year resident of the District, testified in opposition. He noted that informational panels on Arlington Memorial Bridge describe the bridge as the ceremonial entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, arguing that the hallowed character of the grounds commences not at the cemetery gates but along the entire approach. He quoted from page 59 of the McMillan Commission Report of 1902, in which Olmsted and the Commission write that nothing needs proper supervision and planning more than the modern cemetery, because nothing suffers more from vulgarity, ignorance, and pretentiousness. The report calls for a cemetery to be a place one enters with respect and peace, as into a church or sacred place. Mr. Ayers said he has no objection to a monument to the living but does not believe this is the appropriate site for one.
Chairman Cook then invited comments from Commission members. He acknowledged the contributions of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and the McMillan Plan, noting that his own family had built several Olmsted-designed parks. He added that the National Trust for Historic Preservation had recognized his work in saving the Fox Theatre in Atlanta. He said that Washington is not a static city and that it must grow to allow the next 250 years of Americans to celebrate their accomplishments. He said that the Lincoln Memorial is 100’ tall and the arch would be 166’ tall and therefore not double the height, as had been suggested. He spoke of the significance of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and Arlington House to him, referring to his own father’s study of Lee at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, and how that study had led his father to seek out Martin Luther King, Sr., who is known in Atlanta as “Daddy King.” He described the arch as scaled to frame Arlington House, providing the prominence to that site that it deserves as Lee’s home. He reiterated that he had personally been involved in a proposal for an arch at this very location 26 years earlier that was derailed by the September 11th attack on the Pentagon. He again concluded that the building would be beautiful and in scale with the McMillan Plan.
Mr. McCrery said he would like to address the two principal arguments being made against the arch—that it is too big and that it would block views—suggesting that these two arguments are in tension with each other: making the arch smaller would cause it to block the view, whereas at its current size of 166’, the portal of the arch would be large enough to frame the view. He said that one has to be positioned directly on the axis to appreciate the objects at either end, and that by spanning that line the arch would provide a frame rather than a blockage; he commented that this is a matter of geometry and binocular vision. He added that many of the concerns raised are matters that the Commission does not have the purview to address, and he suggested that objections related to legal authorization, congressional approval, political process, and related matters be brought to the appropriate venues. He reiterated that the Commission’s role is to work with presented designs and make them more appropriate and more beautiful. He concluded that he is prepared to make a motion.
The meeting was recessed at 10:54 a.m. and resumed at 11:16 a.m.
Upon returning from the recess, Chairman Cook invited any additional comments from the Commission members. Hearing none, he exercised his authority as Chairman to make the following motion: that the arch, including the site plan, location, size, and design, be approved at the “final concept” level, and that the Commission looks forward to reviewing a full sculptural program, which is still to be developed, at a future meeting.
Secretary Luebke asked for clarification as to whether the winged sculptures on top of the arch were included in his motion. Chairman Cook confirmed that his motion covers the entire concept design, including the sculptures on top, and that what would be presented in the future is the full detailed sculptural program, including potentially sculpture in the niches as well. He noted that an engineer had already been engaged to assist with the analysis of the rooftop statuary, and that the Commission would need to see the collaboration between the architectural and sculptural design teams. Chairman Cook asked Mr. Charbonneau whether a sculptor was currently working on the roof sculptures; Mr. Charbonneau responded that no sculptor had been formally engaged and that the design had not been developed beyond what was presented.
Mr. McCrery clarified the motion for the record: to approve the design as presented at the final concept level, and to note that the Commission looks forward to seeing the sculptural components of the approved design in a future submission. Chairman Cook confirmed this characterization.
Secretary Luebke asked whether this would still be a concept-level approval, as the Commission had approved the first concept at its April meeting, after which a final design submission with full documentation would normally follow. He noted that the Commission could choose to declare this a final approval, as it had done for the White House Ballroom, or it could reserve its review of the final design until the documentation is complete. Chairman Cook said that for the building itself, this would be a final approval.
Ms. Harris seconded the motion, confirming her understanding that the motion is for final approval of the structure of the arch, concept approval for the statue on top, with the request for the team to return with a presentation of the sculptural program. Chairman Cook confirmed this description. The motion passed unanimously.
Following the vote, Mr. McCrery thanked the design team for the model, which he said was very persuasive in conveying the scale of the arch in the context of the great stretch of the Mall and the relationships among the memorials and monuments in the national capital. He also noted his particular appreciation for the blue color of the reflecting pool in the model and in the rendered views.
Chairman Cook addressed the members of the public who had spoken, acknowledging that differences of opinion exist and that their concerns matter. He reiterated his view that the building would beautifully frame the legacy of Robert E. Lee—who matters to him very personally—in a way no other structure could, and he offered this as the basis for the Commission’s approval of the arch.
C. National Park Service / Virginia Passenger Rail Authority
CFA 21/MAY/26-2, Long Bridge Project – South Package. New railroad and pedestrian bridges between Virginia and the District of Columbia. (Previous: CFA 22/JAN/26-2) Revised concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the third revised concept design for the south package of the Long Bridge Project, an undertaking that would double the rail capacity crossing the Potomac River; the south package covers the scope between the shorelines of Virginia and Washington, D.C. He noted that the most significant component of the project is the construction of a new two-track rail bridge parallel to the existing Long Bridge, as well as a separate pedestrian/cyclist bridge adjacent to it.
Secretary Luebke said that at the previous review of the project in January, the Commission members had emphasized the Potomac River’s historic and scenic significance, which requires high aesthetic standards for all river crossings. They had asked for study of a more open design for the section of the rail bridge near the historic swing span to encourage views up and down the river. They had also urged refinement of the pedestrian/cyclist bridge’s cast concrete piers to be less utilitarian, suggesting stone or a more elegant concrete form, while expressing support for the bridge’s pile-cap design. Overall, there had been wide support for the proposed landscape design, and Commission members had emphasized the importance of maintaining public recreational access to the river, particularly during national holidays. He said that in response, the project team has refined the proposal and returned with more accurate renderings and information, as well as studies regarding options for the piers. He asked Laurel Hammig, acting deputy associate regional director for lands and planning at the National Park Service (NPS), National Capital Region, to introduce the project.
Ms. Hammig said that NPS has been involved in the Long Bridge project for many years, both as the land manager and as a steward of nationally significant federal lands and resources within this important corridor. She described it as one of the region’s most important and most visible transportation corridors, connecting communities across the region while crossing a nationally significant landscape along the Potomac River—a place where critical infrastructure, public access, and iconic civic spaces all come together, making thoughtful design especially important. She said NPS’s role has been to help ensure the project advances critical transportation capacity and regional mobility while remaining compatible with surrounding federal lands and protecting the public experience of these nationally significant places. She noted that the proposal reflects continued design refinement responsive to Commission feedback, with the goal of advancing a durable, well-integrated solution that respects the historic setting and landscape character of the corridor. She asked Shirlene Cleveland, senior director for the Long Bridge Project at the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority (VPRA), to begin the presentation.
Ms. Cleveland introduced members of the Long Bridge Rail Partners team, including Fred Parkinson, design manager, and Ben Fitts, design-build integration manager. She said the team has returned with direct responses to the two design questions the Commission had raised at the January meeting, but she wishes first to briefly address the project’s regional importance.
Ms. Cleveland said the Long Bridge Project is intended to address one of the most critical rail bottlenecks in the country. She said that the project not only serves the region, but it also constitutes a critical rail connection for both freight and passenger rail between the north and the south and between the East Coast and major markets including Chicago, Memphis, and Atlanta. Two new tracks will cross the Potomac River, doubling capacity, improving on-time performance for Amtrak and Virginia Railway Express, and separating passenger rail from freight. She described the regional context, noting that south of Union Station there are three tracks between Long Bridge and the L’Enfant Plaza area, branching into two tracks toward Union Station for passenger rail and two tracks heading northeast for freight. At the Long Bridge corridor, however, there are only two tracks, which are shared by Amtrak, VRE, and CSX. She noted that to the south, CSX is currently constructing a fourth track, and to the north, VRE will construct a fourth track as part of the L’Enfant Station project. Together with the Long Bridge project, these will create a continuous four-track corridor—two tracks for passenger trains and two for freight.
Ms. Cleveland noted that the Long Bridge Project actually comprises five rail bridges and two pedestrian bridges. Beginning in Arlington, Virginia, near the Long Bridge Aquatic Center, the project bridges over the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) and Mount Vernon Trail, crosses the Potomac River, passes through East Potomac Park, crosses over I-395 and Metrorail’s Yellow Line, crosses the Washington Channel, continues over Maine Avenue and under the Maryland Avenue overbuild development known as The Portals, and ends just south of L’Enfant Plaza. The existing historic Long Bridge will remain in place, continuing to be owned and operated by CSX primarily for freight, while the new two-track rail bridge will be owned by VPRA and used primarily for passenger rail, with all four tracks to be interoperable. The project also includes a dedicated bridge for cyclists and pedestrians as mitigation for parkland impacts, connecting Long Bridge Park and the Mount Vernon Trail in Virginia to East Potomac Park in D.C.
Ms. Cleveland described Long Bridge’s 200-year history, noting that the first bridge was authorized by Congress in 1808, signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson, and opened in 1809 as the longest bridge in the United States at that time. It was a wooden toll bridge that was burned, flooded, and rebuilt many times: British troops burned it during the War of 1812, and the Civil War brought it into military service for transporting troops, wounded soldiers, and supplies. A parallel structure was built for train use in 1863. Later versions accommodated carriages, streetcars, and electrified rail service. Today’s Long Bridge dates to 1904, with significant modifications made over the past century, and currently carries more than seventy trains a day operating at near full capacity. She indicated the location of the new bridges, to be situated between the existing Metrorail bridge and the historic Long Bridge. From north to south, the river crossings will ultimately include multiple highway bridges—I-395 southbound, the 14th Street Bridge, I-395 northbound—as well as the Metrorail bridge, the new pedestrian/cyclist bridge, the new two-track rail bridge, and the historic Long Bridge.
Ms. Cleveland said that the project has been in development since 2011, representing fifteen years of planning, environmental review, community engagement, and coordination with stakeholders that include the Commission. The project began with the District Department of Transportation and was transferred to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2021 to complete design and construction. She said that construction is imminent, permits are in hand, and the first step of building the underwater bridge foundations is slated to begin in the summer. The project is divided into north and south construction packages, with the north package having previously received CFA approval, and with the final approval of the many construction packages delegated to the staff.
Ms. Cleveland detailed the project’s coordination history with the Commission, noting that CFA has been a stakeholder since the earliest phases dating to 2011, and a formal consulting party to historic preservation regulatory review since 2020. She noted that in 2013, consensus was reached among CFA, NPS, and the National Capital Planning Commission that the new bridge should not be a signature bridge but should instead be as unobtrusive as possible, complementing rather than competing with the elegant structures of Washington’s monumental core. That consensus shaped subsequent design decisions, including that stylistic elements should resemble the historic bridge but be translated for a contemporary structure, with granite cladding on the piers and weathering steel for the through-plate girders. Concept approval was received from the CFA in 2020 at the fifteen percent preliminary engineering phase, and in June 2025 the Commission approved further design refinements at the sixty percent design stage. She asked Ben Fitts and Fred Parkinson to present the revised design.
Mr. Fitts said that he and Mr. Parkinson would address the comments received in January regarding views of the historic swing span truss of Long Bridge and the column design for the pedestrian/cyclist bridge piers. Mr. Parkinson said the core design objective underlying both elements is compatibility with and respect for the historic railroad bridge, which he said would be achieved through the carefully considered shape of the piers, granite stone cladding applied to the substructure elements, and the use of weathering steel girders that will age to complement the existing structure.
Mr. Fitts said he would first address the Commission’s comments regarding views toward the historic swing-span truss and its suggestion to study whether a more open structure at the mid-span of new rail bridge would provide additional vantage points. He said the team had examined the corridor from many locations, including from a boat on the river, from the nearby I-395 bridge, and from adjacent parkland. He presented a downstream view from the water looking south, noting that multiple bridge layers already obstruct the view of the truss today and that the Long Bridge project will have no additional impact on this already limited view. Mr. Parkinson said the view upstream creates a real architectural focus in which the historic swing span rises clearly above the horizontal deck lines of the existing bridge, with emerging views of the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial in the background. He noted that this view was recognized early in the project as significant, and was the reason that the new bridge was sited north of the existing Long Bridge rather than south of it, as well as why it was designed at nearly the same height.
Mr. Fitts presented a view from a boat traveling downstream beneath the northbound I-395 bridge toward the Metrorail bridge and the existing Long Bridge. He noted that existing timber fenders flanking the navigation channel partially obstruct the view of the truss from this perspective. Mr. Parkinson presented a rendered view from a similar vantage point after the proposed construction in which the historic truss remains partially visible above the new bridge’s girder line. He noted that the new bridges would add a layer to the corridor, but that the truss is still clearly visible where it projects above the other superstructure elements, and that the new pedestrian/cyclist bridge is visible in front of the rail bridge.
Mr. Fitts presented an existing upstream view from the Potomac River comparable to what someone might see on the Mount Vernon Trail at Gravelly Point Park, with the Washington Monument clearly visible to the right of the truss. Mr. Parkinson presented the same upstream view rendered with the new bridges in place. He said that because the new bridge heights would be similar to those of the existing bridges, the best view of the truss would be preserved; the historic swing span would remain clearly visible above the new bridge deck and would continue to read as a distinct element on the skyline. He said this demonstrates that the through-girder design promotes the historic structure rather than diminishing it.
Mr. Fitts presented a view driving northbound along I-395, one of the most heavily traveled corridors in the region, where thousands of drivers see the existing Long Bridge and historic swing span in the middle distance above the Metrorail bridge. Mr. Parkinson described a rendered view from that same vantage point with the new bridges in place, noting that the new rail bridge sits to the right of the driver’s sightline and that the swing span remains visible in the distance. He observed that the existing Metrorail bridge is the highest structure in this view and has the greatest impact on the sightline to the truss, and that the two new bridges—both positioned below the Metrorail bridge—would not affect the view of the truss from this vantage point.
Mr. Parkinson presented a view from the new pedestrian/cyclist bridge looking toward D.C. from near the aquatic center in Arlington, with the Washington Monument visible on the horizon. He said that pedestrians and cyclists would have a view of the monumental core as they cross the Potomac River, with the historic truss visible as part of that view. Looking back toward the existing Long Bridge from the pedestrian/cyclist bridge, the truss would be visible just beyond the new rail bridge, and the weathering steel would serve as a unifying design element between the historic and new Long Bridge structures.
Mr. Fitts presented a view northbound on the new passenger rail bridge, with the pedestrian/cyclist bridge visible to the left, the Washington Monument on the horizon, and the swing-span truss of the existing Long Bridge fully visible to the right and at close range—a vantage point that no passenger has had before.
Mr. Parkinson described a southbound view in which the swing span comes into full view as a passenger train travels over the new bridge. He said this may be the clearest and most dramatic view of the historic truss that the project would create, and that rather than diminishing the truss, the new bridge would frame it, promoting its significance as passengers ride past. He concluded that while today’s passenger trains travel through and beneath the truss span elements, the new bridge would give passengers an up-close view of the truss in its entirety.
Ms. Cleveland said that VPRA’s recommendation is to retain the through-plate girder design for the new rail bridge. She cited this structure’s ability to withstand bridge strikes and derailment events better than a truss or more open bridge design—noting that in the wake of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore, structural resilience is a top priority for a bridge carrying more than seventy trains a day over the Potomac River. She added that for users of the pedestrian/cyclist bridge, the girders would provide meaningful protection from train noise, dust, and debris, making the crossing more comfortable. Regarding the historical context question, she expressed confidence that the views presented demonstrate that the through-plate girder design would not diminish the truss, but would instead create new views of it for passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians. She then invited Mr. Fitts and Mr. Parkinson to present the team’s response to the Commission’s comments regarding the pier design for the pedestrian/cyclist bridge.
Mr. Fitts said the Commission had expressed concern regarding the appearance of these piers, describing them as utilitarian. He noted the Commission’s request for design worthy of a national scenic river, and the recommendation to study modifications to the round columns previously proposed, including consideration of a more elegant design, possibly an octagonal shape. He said the project team has returned with four design alternatives.
Mr. Parkinson said Option 1 is a faceted column with an octagonal profile. He said this moves away from the plain cylinder while retaining clean and simple lines, with flat faces that catch light differently throughout the day, adding visual interest and depth. He noted that it echoes the faceted geometry of the pier’s pile cap above the water’s surface. He said this option builds directly on the Commission’s feedback that the octagonal pile caps were elegant and that this shape be continued upward into the column, creating a unified appearance from the waterline to the bridge deck.
Mr. Fitts said Option 2 builds on the faceted column by adding recessed panels to each face, introducing additional shadow and articulation. He noted that while it adds more detail than Option 1, the column still reads as clean and simple from a distance.
Mr. Parkinson said Option 3 returns to the cylindrical form but adds vertical ribs, giving the column a more Classical character. He noted that while the ribs add visual interest, the rib profile introduces a decorative quality that may feel at odds with the project’s established design vocabulary of simple, unobtrusive forms.
Mr. Fitts said Option 4 combines the faceted form with wider, more pronounced ribs. He noted that of the four options, this one carries the most visual weight, and that while the features create visual interest, the added complexity may draw attention to the piers in a way that competes with the overall bridge design.
Ms. Cleveland said VPRA’s preference is Option 1, the faceted column. She said its octagonal shape unites the angular geometry of the rail bridge and the rounded piers of the Metrorail bridge, sitting comfortably between the two existing structures. She said it is visually clean and simple, echoing the faceted pier base, and the flat faces add visual interest and light reflection without drawing undue attention to the pier. She said it moves meaningfully beyond the baseline cylindrical column while staying true to the 2013 design consensus to build a bridge that allows the historic rail corridor and the surrounding monumental core to remain the visual focal point of the river. Ms. Cleveland requested the Commission’s support of the faceted column pier design for the pedestrian/cyclist bridge and the Long Bridge south package as a whole, expressing gratitude for the Commission’s continued partnership in shaping the project.
Chairman Cook invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. McCrery observed that the renderings of the column options show granite on the new railroad bridge but not on the new pedestrian/cyclist bridge. He said his understanding is that there had been a commitment to put granite on the substructures of the bridges at an earlier Commission review, and he asked for more information. Ms. Cleveland clarified that the commitment to use granite was for the rail bridge, not the pedestrian/cyclist bridge. Mr. McCrery asked whether the Commission records explicitly state that granite applies only to the railroad bridge and would not be used for the pedestrian/cyclist bridge. Ms. Cleveland said she is not certain it was explicitly stated that granite would not be used for the bike/pedestrian bridge, but she noted that previous concept approvals for that bridge were for concrete piers. Secretary Luebke confirmed that granite was never proposed for the pedestrian/cyclist bridge; he said the discussion of using granite on the new rail bridge was to make it similar to the historic bridge, and that the pedestrian/cyclist bridge was intended to have a lighter character somewhat like the Metrorail bridge. Ms. Cleveland agreed, adding that the challenge throughout has been to make the pedestrian/cyclist bridge look lighter, and that granite cladding would have the opposite effect.
Ms. Patenaude asked for clarification on the distinction between two of the bridges’ materials, observing that the Metrorail bridge’s piers appear very white in the renderings while the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge’s concrete appears grayer. Mr. Parkinson said that the intention is a natural concrete finish; the Metrorail bridge, having been in place since the mid-1970s, has weathered to a different gray than whatever would be cast now. Mr. Cook suggested that part of the difference in appearance is likely a product of the rendering rather than a true material difference.
Mr. McCrery asked for additional clarification of the bridges that comprise the project. Ms. Cleveland said that one rail bridge would span all the way from Virginia to D.C. across the Potomac River; the pedestrian/cyclist bridge is the second bridge; a new bridge is being constructed over I-395 in D.C.; and the final three bridges involve rebuilding the existing rail bridge in segments over Ohio Drive, the Washington Channel, and Maine Avenue. She also noted that the existing pedestrian bridge over Maine Avenue is being reconstructed in a new position as a result of the widening. Mr. McCrery said that he had previously asked for an explicit commitment from the applicant team to ensure that the bridges are properly maintained and kept in good condition over the long term. He cited the existing Long Bridge truss as an example, observing that rail infrastructure bridges can go for decades without apparent maintenance and become unattractive over time. He said he believes that the existing truss is beautiful in its structural form but acknowledged that its deteriorated state leads some to view it as ugly. He asked what commitment could be made to the District of Columbia, to the Commission, and to posterity that the bridges would be properly maintained. Ms. Cleveland responded that the existing bridge is owned by CSX, and that VPRA could work with CSX to encourage maintenance of their bridge. Mr. McCrery said he had believed everything was being turned over to the Commonwealth of Virginia; Ms. Cleveland clarified that this is not the case. Mr. McCrery suggested that CSX representatives be invited to a future meeting.
Secretary Luebke said a member of the public wishes to speak. Chairman Cook invited Lieutenant Helen Hart of the National Council of Negro Women to address the Commission.
Lt. Hart described the project as a complex undertaking that balances necessity with historical prominence. She said she looks forward to using the pedestrian bridge for running but wants to ensure that safety has been fully incorporated into the design. Drawing on her work with a domestic violence shelter and experience in the inner city, she urged the project team to consult closely with the police departments, NPS, and all relevant security components throughout the design of the pedestrian/cyclist bridge to ensure adequate surveillance and safety provisions. She noted that while recreational use in the afternoon is common, marathon trainers and other athletes frequently run at three or four o’clock in the morning, and that the bridge should be safe for users at all hours, particularly women. She offered to follow up by email and thanked the Commission for its time.
Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission is being asked to consider a revised concept design, adding that the Commission has the option of taking an action and delegating the final review to staff, as had been done for the project’s north package following its revised concept approval.
Mr. Cook said that his preference for the pedestrian/cyclist bridge piers is Option 2, the octagonal form with recessed panels, but that he would defer to any Commission member wishing to add comment. Ms. Patenaude said she would like to hear Mr. McCrery’s view. Mr. McCrery said he considers the four presented options to be a de minimis response to the request for a serious redesign of the pier columns. He said his desire was for a much more substantial undertaking, characterizing the options as variations of decorating four different tubes rather than a true redesign. He said he is happy to defer to his fellow Commission members’ preferred option and observed that, in his view, the Commission had been outlasted by the applicant. Ms. Patenaude asked if there are any other views available showing the proposed columns in context; Mr. Fitts confirmed there were none in the current presentation.
Mr. Cook asked if the spacing between the vertical ribs in Option 3 could be varied, and if a base and cap treatment could be added to the column. Mr. Fitts said the team had not explored such an option. Mr. Cook asked whether such modifications would be straightforward; Mr. Fitts said he would not describe them as easy.
Ms. Patenaude asked for the number of piers and the spacing between them; Mr. Fitts said that there would be approximately twenty-two piers, and Mr. Parkinson said the spacing between the piers would vary from roughly ninety to one hundred forty feet, following the existing pier spacing.
Mr. Cook reiterated his preference for Option 2. Ms. Patenaude said that although none of the options is her preference, she does not want to see the project delayed, and she expressed support for Option 1, as the pier would match the pile cap below. Ms. Harris agreed and expressed her preference for Option 1.
Chairman Cook invited a motion. Secretary Luebke suggested that the Commission take a single action on the project as a whole rather than a separate vote on the column option.
Upon a motion by Ms. Patenaude with a second by Ms. Harris, the Commission voted to approve the revised concept design for the Long Bridge South Package, including the selection of Option 1 for the pedestrian/cyclist bridge pier columns, with final review delegated to the staff; Mr. McCrery abstained.
Following the action, Secretary Luebke noted that when the Commission delegates final review to staff, the design is considered carefully, and if anything is substantially different from what was approved at the revised concept phase, the matter is returned to the Commission.
E. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
SL 26-100, Embassy of Saudi Arabia, 601 New Hampshire Avenue, NW. Building renovation and addition. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced a concept design for the renovation of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He said the property is situated on a triangular lot at the intersection of Virginia and New Hampshire Avenues, adjacent to the Kennedy Center, the Watergate Complex, and the Columbia Plaza apartments. He said that the five-story Stripped Classical-style building was completed in 1959 to a design by the prominent local architecture firm of Mills, Petticord & Mills and served originally as the headquarters of the People’s Life Insurance Company. The Saudi Arabian government purchased the building in the 1980s for embassy use. He said the symmetrically composed building features Georgia White Cherokee marble cladding, metal windows, a simple cornice, and a fenestration composition with marble piers emphasizing verticality on the west and east facades.
Secretary Luebke said the scope of the proposed renovation is substantial and comprehensive, encompassing window replacement, enlarged pedestrian and vehicular entrances, security screening, improved service and vehicular access, perimeter security, terraces, and a rooftop solar installation. He noted that the proposed exterior design is focused primarily on the entry sequences and includes the installation of triangular sunshades with geometric motifs and the addition of angled glazed volumes at the existing east and west portals. These volumes are intended to add space outside the historic building envelope for security screening functions. Additional free-standing vehicle and mail screening facilities are also proposed. He asked Roger Schwabacher, design principal at HOK, to present the design.
Mr. Schwabacher said the existing building has not received substantial maintenance or improvements since its construction. The single-pane windows are thermally inefficient, and the building suffers from leaks, cracks, deteriorating marble, and disrepair of the landscape. He said the history and design philosophy of Mills, Petticord & Mills was researched in order to approach the renovation respectfully. He cited two other prominent buildings by the same firm in Washington, D.C.: the former headquarters of the National Association of Broadcasters, south of Dupont Circle, and the 1960s additions to the National Museum of Natural History. He described the latter as a particularly applicable example of the firm’s style, demonstrating a clear base, middle, and top composition with vertical fenestration and rhythmic repetition. He said that analysis of the existing building revealed a strong sense of symmetry with a prominent central entrance, equally spaced repetition of windows on either side, a distinct base with square windows, a middle section with vertically stacked windows and spandrel panels, a top, a prominent vertical entry element typical of the firm’s work, and timeless materiality with the building fully clad in Georgia White Cherokee marble.
Mr. Schwabacher said the proposed design seeks to balance a respect for the existing building with the mission and identity of the Saudi Arabian Embassy. He described the Salmani Code, a set of sixteen architectural tenets reflecting Saudi ideals, that was established by King Salman bin Abdulaziz. He identified eight of these tenets as applicable to this renovation: stepping facades; a layered building composition; deep setbacks, providing natural shade particularly relevant to desert architecture; verticality, expressed through vertical wind towers and vertical elements; color and materiality reflecting the sand tones and regional materials of traditional Saudi architecture; geometry, particularly triangular patterning rooted in Saudi Arabia’s mathematical heritage; and shading elements to reduce heat gain.
Mr. Schwabacher indicated six focus areas of the project: the modified west and east entrance portals, which are designed to clearly announce and celebrate the entry points; a garden element adjacent to the cafeteria on the east side, screened from the public with landscape elements; a terrace adjacent to the auditorium; a mail compound access control (CAC) facility for service deliveries; and a business CAC facility for pedestrian and VIP access. He said that window replacement is proposed throughout; the west entrance and stairs on New Hampshire Avenue are to be replaced; and the east entrance and stairs are to be replaced.
Mr. Schwabacher then presented three design options for the treatment of the entrance portals. In Option 1, a projecting frame is added around each entrance, clad in limestone rather than the original marble. This design concept treats the north–south bar of the building as the original marble volume and the east-west entrance block as fully clad in limestone, expressing the intersection of architectural cultures as the building’s organizing parti. Common to all options, a glass infill replaces the punched windows at the center of each portal; on the west, the glass volume projects outward at the ground floor to accommodate security screening, tapering gracefully from the ground floor to the upper floors, and on the east, the projection is triangular in plan on all floors. Triangular patterning appears in both the stone panels and the glass. In Option 2, new Cherokee marble wraps the exterior of the portal frames, with limestone introduced only in the carved-away negative spaces at the center. Running bond patterning appears in the marble sections; triangular patterning appears in the limestone sections. In Option 3, no additional portal frame is added. The main entries are instead treated in the same manner as the punched windows throughout the rest of the building, retaining the Cherokee marble, cornice, and original details, with changes limited to a glass infill within the existing masonry openings.
Mr. Schwabacher noted that on the east facade, the glass infill would be canted outward to respond to the primary entry point for diplomatic and important visitors, while the west entry would serve the public and consular functions. The canted volume would add programmatic square footage and orient the entry toward the vehicular drop-off circle, which would be relocated and reoriented as part of the design. He described the glazing treatment, noting that a ceramic frit pattern incorporating triangular geometry would be applied to the glass throughout, increasing privacy and mitigating heat gain. Metal sunshades with triangular patterning would be applied to the majority of windows, projecting approximately two feet from the glass at the farthest point, sloping downward and outward.
Mr. Schwabacher said the business CAC would be clad in Cherokee marble; the service and loading dock CAC would be clad in a darker black granite to recede visually, given its greater height to accommodate truck access and a service elevator. Three stone options are being considered for secondary elements such as the CAC and the fence piers, with the loading building featuring a reduced scale of patterning. He said an anti-climb perimeter fence would have stone-clad piers with metal picket infill; a hierarchy of varying pier sizes is proposed. He said principal access points would include the west entrance steps, a garage entrance on the south, and two vehicular entrances on the east.
Mr. Schwabacher said the landscape materials are intended to be durable and timeless, including granite cobbles and granite pavers. He noted that the proposed garden element adjacent to the cafeteria would be enclosed with a low stone-clad wall and tall plantings for privacy, and that the auditorium terrace would be supported on V-shaped columns referring to the triangular forms of the sunshades and glazing. He said the goal is to retain the heritage and significant trees on the site, with only two removals anticipated, and that root zones are being carefully protected.
Upon the conclusion of the presentation, Chairman Cook confirmed with Secretary Luebke that this is a concept review and a first submission. Secretary Luebke confirmed that it was and noted that the three portal options and several fence options were the primary matters before the Commission members. He added that staff had met with the design team numerous times to refine the proposal prior to this presentation.
Chairman Cook said that the shading elements are difficult to decipher in the drawings, and he asked Mr. Schwabacher to clarify how the sunshades would be configured. Ms. Patenaude expressed similar difficulty understanding what the sunshades would look like and asked whether there is a clearer image. Mr. McCrery explained that the darker element is the mesh of the sunshade, and that the shades are designed as triangular pieces that project outward. Ms. Patenaude asked how far the triangles would project at the top of the long windows. Mr. Schwabacher confirmed that the top of the triangle would be flush with the top mullion and that the shades would slope downward and outward, reaching approximately two feet from the glass at the farthest point where the two sloping planes meet at a central point. Ms. Patenaude asked whether this sunshade configuration exists on any other building in Washington; Mr. Schwabacher said this is a custom detail designed specifically for this project.
Ms. Patenaude asked whether the client has a preference among the three options. Mr. Schwabacher confirmed that the client prefers Option 1, followed by Option 2, and then Option 3, and he noted that the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs has effectively signed off on Option 1, noting its preference for the limestone materiality and the bold, prominent entry expression. He said that Options 2 and 3 were developed in response to discussions with CFA staff.
Mr. Cook asked whether the projecting glass volume in the portal options would be an atrium or whether the floors would extend into the new volume. Mr. Schwabacher confirmed that this element is not an atrium, and that the lobby occupies the ground floor, with different programmatic uses on the floors above.
Mr. McCrery indicated the reveal present in the existing facade, asking whether it continues down the sides of the building and whether the masonry openings would be retained without alteration; Mr. Schwabacher confirmed both. Mr. McCrery observed that the east facade features a single large opening while the west facade features a series of individual punched openings, and he confirmed with Mr. Schwabacher that the design strategy borrows the east facade’s single-opening approach and applies it to both elevations.
Mr. McCrery asked whether the existing entry stairs would be retained, commenting that he finds them quite attractive. Mr. Schwabacher said the design team would like to retain the stairs, but he noted that they are not ADA compliant and would need to be rebuilt to accommodate a lift. He added that the mechanical system’s fresh air intakes currently run through some of the site elements, and that because the entire interior and mechanical system is being replaced, the intakes must be rebuilt to meet code requirements. Mr. McCrery asked whether the building carries any historic designation; Secretary Luebke confirmed it does not. Mr. McCrery observed that the building could be a good candidate for such recognition, noting it serves well as an embassy regardless of its origins. Mr. McCrery then asked whether the fence line corresponds to the property line; Mr. Schwabacher confirmed that it does. Mr. McCrery observed that from a security standpoint it would typically be preferable to bring the fence closer to the sidewalk, but he acknowledged the constraint of the property line. He asked whether any wall designs had been studied instead of fencing. Mr. Schwabacher confirmed that many options had been considered and that it was determined that the perimeter security should not be the dominant visual element; the preference is for the fence to recede visually so that the landscape and building read clearly, while still being worthy of an embassy setting, which is why stone piers of several sizes with metal picket infill are being considered.
Cara Smith, a landscape architect with HOK, added that one of the key reasons the team did not pursue a wall design is the presence of heritage trees on the site, as a pier-based fence system would minimize the depth of foundations, better protecting the critical root zones of the trees. Mr. Schwabacher confirmed that foundation disturbance is a significant concern and that the team has been very deliberate about minimizing impact on the root zones.
Mr. Cook said that there is a federal mandate favoring Classical architecture in the city, and he characterized the design as an interesting blend of both traditions. He noted that the client’s preference is for the option that is least Classical in expression among the three presented, and he said that the design team had executed the Classical option well. He asked Mr. Schwabacher to display Option 2, which uses the Georgia White Cherokee marble surround with limestone infill. Mr. McCrery observed that the existing building already incorporates the stepping element central to Saudi design principles, making it inherently well-suited to embassy use. Mr. Cook asked for clarification on Option 2, confirming that it features a marble surround with limestone at the recessed surfaces, as opposed to Option 1, which is entirely limestone; Mr. Schwabacher confirmed this.
Mr. McCrery suggested that Option 3 would achieve what Option 2 attempts, but entirely in marble. He asked whether that configuration—the portal form executed entirely in White Cherokee marble—had been explored. Mr. Schwabacher confirmed it had, noting that the team had originally presented eight options to CFA staff and that were then narrowed to three; one of the eight options was the full portal form executed entirely in White Cherokee marble, and another removed the triangulation from the stone shape in favor of stacked coursing.
Mr. Yuntaek Hyun, a project designer with HOK, said that the limestone represents the materiality of Saudi identity and cultural heritage. He noted that the angled walls of the portal would serve a functional role as well, channeling and guiding visitors toward the entrance. He described the Saudi government’s strong preference for Option 1, as they consider it a prototype for future embassy designs internationally, representing the welcoming expression of Saudi identity in a subtle way.
Secretary Luebke noted that the staff had asked the design team to reduce the number of options from eight to a manageable number for the presentation, and that staff had not seen all eight options. He added that staff had encouraged the team to look more carefully at Option 3 because it preserves the white marble of the original building while achieving a consistent design language through the window infill treatment applied across all facades. He characterized it as a reasonable and respectful approach, while leaving the final direction to the Commission members.
Mr. Cook said he believes the Commission members would largely agree with the staff’s view, and said Option 3 would be his first choice. Ms. Patenaude said she does not agree, and questioned whether the Executive Order requiring Classicism applies to this project. Secretary Luebke confirmed that the order applies specifically to federal projects and that this building, reviewed under the Shipstead-Luce Act, is a private building with no federal funding. Ms. Patenaude said that given the private nature of the project and the absence of federal funding, her preference would be to respect the Saudi Embassy’s wishes to pursue its preferred option.
Mr. McCrery said he prefers Option 3 on architectural grounds. He said that in Options 1 and 2, the projecting portal frame reads to him as reminiscent of the Grande Arche de la Défense in Paris—a work of French Modernism—rather than as an expression of Saudi architecture. He said the shape is the dominant visual impression and that it seems to detract from the architectural integrity of the building as designed. He said that, in contrast, Option 3 is a beautifully restrained and elegant architectural solution operating within the existing masonry openings: the sunshade fins capture the layering, stepping, triangulation, geometry, light, and shadow of the Saudi design principles, and do so with powerful, confident restraint. He called the design a tour de force, and said that while he is known as an outspoken Classicist, he believes that good modernism deserves to be recognized as such, and that this is genuinely good design. He also suggested developing a sunshade treatment for the upper story windows, similar in character but simpler than those proposed for the larger windows below. He also suggested exploring the use of white granite for the entry stairs, noting that while he understands the practical reasons for switching to gray granite, including its durability and the desire to visually distinguish the landscape materials from the building materials, he encouraged the team to consider white granite as an alternative that would be more similar to the existing stairs.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to approve Option 3, with the suggestions to explore sunshades on the upper windows and to study wall designs in addition to or instead of fencing along the perimeter. Chairman Cook asked for a second; receiving none from the other Commission members, he seconded the motion himself. He then called for a vote, with those in favor saying aye; a chorus of ayes followed. Chairman Cook called for those opposed; Ms. Patenaude indicated she was opposed. Chairman Cook asked Ms. Harris to confirm her vote. Ms. Harris confirmed her vote was aye and noted that while she personally prefers Option 3, she feels that Option 2 represents a good compromise between the client’s wishes and the Classical character of the existing building. The motion passed 3–1.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:03 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary