The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:00 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., Chairman
Hon. James C. McCrery II, Vice Chairman
Hon. Mary Anne Carter
Hon. Chamberlain Harris
Hon. Roger Kimball
Hon. Pamela Hughes Patenaude
Hon. Matthew Taylor
Staff present: Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Jessica Amos
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Administration of oath of office to Chamberlain Harris and Pamela Hughes Patenaude. Secretary Luebke announced that in late January, President Donald J. Trump appointed two new members, Chamberlain R. Harris and Pamela Hughes Patenaude, to serve four-year terms on the Commission, thereby filling all seven vacancies.
Secretary Luebke introduced Ms. Harris, who currently serves as the Deputy Director of Oval Office Operations at the White House. Ms. Harris began her career in Washington, D.C., at the White House and continued her work in Florida at the office of the 45th President, managing his Presidential Portrait Project in conjunction with the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution and the White House Historical Association.
Mr. Luebke introduced Ms. Patenaude, who has extensive experience as an executive in the private, nonprofit, and government sectors. She serves as principal of Granite Housing Strategies, LLC, where she provides strategic advice for clients engaged in real estate development, affordable housing, and disaster recovery management. From 2017 to 2019, she served as deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, where she managed the operations of this cabinet-level agency.
Secretary Luebke then administered the oath of office to the new members and welcomed them to the Commission.
B.Approval of the minutes of the 22 January meeting. Secretary Luebke reportedthat the minutes of the January 2026 meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Kimball with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the minutes.
C. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 19 March, 16 April, and 21 May 2026. He noted that Chairman Cook had directed that the Commission return to in-person meetings starting in March, with attendance for applicants and other participants taking place at the Commission offices in the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of each document were circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting.
Appendix I – Government Submissions (Consent Calendar): Mr. Fox said that no changes have been made to the consent calendar, which includes 10 projects. Upon a motion by Mr. Kimball with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes 10 projects. Several changes have been made to the appendix since the draft was circulated to the Commission: three cases are proposed to be held open for review in a future meeting (cases SL 25-141, SL 25-098, and SL 26-055); the recommendation for case SL 26-063 was changed to no objection after revisions by the applicant; and small wording changes and dates for supplemental materials received were added. Ms. Lee noted that staff is waiting for supplemental materials for two cases and expects to continue working with applicants to resolve minor issues. Upon a motion by Ms. Patenaude with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Ms. Amos said that the appendix includes 63 projects, and that there were no changes to the draft circulated to the Commission. She noted that staff is still working with one applicant to resolve some issues, but a resolution is anticipated in a few days. Upon a motion by Mr. Kimball with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider item II.B.2. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had identified this submission as one that could be approved without a presentation.
B. National Park Service / U.S. Secret Service
2. CFA 19/FEB/26-2, Four Corners Project, White House Grounds and President’s Park – West Side. Temporary security barriers and other modifications. Final.
Secretary Luebke said the proposal is for temporary security installations, intended to be in place for approximately three years before being replaced by permanent security elements. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission approved the final design submission.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.1.
B. National Park Service / Executive Office of the President
1. CFA 19/FEB/26-1, White House Complex, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. East Wing modernization and ballroom addition. Concept. (Previous: CFA 22/JAN/26-1)
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design, submitted by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) on behalf of the National Park Service (NPS), for a proposed new addition to the White House complex to accommodate a ballroom and associated support services. He said the addition would replace the East Wing, which was a 15,000-square-foot building connected to the main Federal-era Residence via a narrow hyphen and colonnade at the ground level. The East Wing was demolished in October 2025, and it housed the offices of the First Lady on the upper level, security and visitor management at the ground level, and other secure areas below. The new ballroom itself would be approximately 110 by 200 feet within a larger building, with ceilings roughly forty feet tall and situated a story above the East Wing entrance grade, but at the same level as the Residence’s State Room. The addition would be connected directly to the Residence via a new hyphen leading into the East Room. The top of the proposed addition’s balustrade would be the same height as the historic residence, though it would read as another story higher along East Executive Avenue as the land drops to the east and south.
Secretary Luebke noted that the project was last seen by the Commission as an information presentation at its January meeting. At that meeting, the Commission members expressed support for the direction of the design while providing several comments regarding the national importance of the project and the need for compatibility with the White House. Concerns were raised about security, particularly regarding the openness of the proposed outdoor terraces, as well as about the large scale of the portico on the addition’s south side. He said the design team has returned with a concept submission that includes design revisions and additional details, with the most significant change being the removal of the pediment from the south portico, modifying it to be a linear colonnade. He asked architect Shalom Baranes of Shalom Baranes Associates to present the design, and he noted that a physical scale model of the project would be available for viewing during the presentation.
Mr. McCrery recused himself due to his direct involvement with the project, noting it would be inappropriate for him to comment or vote on the applicant’s work.
Mr. Baranes said the team would address three general areas: architectural issues related to the building, sight lines and views of the project from both inside and outside the security line, and the landscape design. He presented an aerial view of the White House Grounds illustrating the footprint of the proposed ballroom structure and new connecting hyphen. He noted the site’s significant drop in elevation from the north side around to the east and south. He presented the north and south elevations, which show the White House and the adjacent Treasury Building and Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), and he indicated the vegetation surrounding the ballroom, particularly visible in the north elevation.
Mr. Baranes then presented renderings illustrating public views of the new addition. The first view was of the front portico of the White House as seen from Pennsylvania Avenue, with the proposed two-story colonnaded hyphen and ballroom structure visible to the left. Next was an oblique view of both the hyphen and the ballroom structure from inside the security fence. He indicated the datum established at the roof line where the new building’s balustrade would match the balustrade on the White House, creating a “primary horizon line” that would wrap around the entire project. He noted that the height of this horizon line is exceeded only by the White House’s front portico and roof behind the trees, and that this relationship would be repeated in the new building. He said the balustrade on the north side of the White House has a slightly different pattern than the balustrades on the other three sides, and the north balustrade pattern would be used on the new addition. He said the proposed rusticated base is inspired by the base of the White House.
Mr. Baranes said the design team generally tried to rationalize design elements and make them simpler in their reading, and he noted the significant changes from the previous submission, which include the removal of the pediment from the south portico and the addition of another arched window at the northern end of the west elevation. He said the additional window is intended to simplify the elevation, reducing its composition from four elements to three by eliminating the separate reading of the north end as two parts. A slight recess approximately two feet wide and four inches deep would mark the transition from the architectural language of the hyphen to the ballroom, which he said uses the same vocabulary as the north side of the Residence. He said the rustication of the base story was previously proposed to continue all the way around the addition, with windows treated as punched openings in a wall; this story is now designed to match the lighter treatment of the colonnaded base of the new connector, creating a consistent condition.
Mr. Baranes presented the proposed floor plans, noting that the main public entry to the ballroom would be on the lower level; visitors would be led through a series of spaces to reach the ballroom on the upper level, which would include a foyer, a lobby leading into the ballroom, and the ballroom itself. A passage from the East Room in the Residence would also lead into the upper foyer and the ballroom. He said that the base of the two-story hyphen would not be visible from the north due to the grade; the existing service drive in this area would be used less frequently, as the addition would house a new delivery access point under the south portico. He presented building sections, noting that the ceiling heights and overall scale of the interior spaces would increase as one approaches the ballroom. He also noted the relationship of the ballroom to the terrace overlooking the south lawn.
Mr. Baranes presented animations of the proposed White House complex as seen from both Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street. He noted that the trees are transparent in the animation, and therefore the new building would not be as visible in reality. Mr. Baranes noted that the ballroom structure would be several hundred feet closer to the viewer on E Street than the south elevation of the White House, and said that the viewing point for the animation is as close as the public can get to the White House.
Mr. Baranes then presented photo simulations of the project from various vantage points. He said that the amount of vegetation around the ballroom is notable, and that the structure would be difficult to see through winter trees, which suggests that it would not be visible at all when the trees have leaves. He said views from the south side, taken from as close as the public can access, show the iconic view of the White House, with the south portico framed by two dense clusters of trees. He said that even in winter, the combination of deciduous and evergreen trees would make it difficult to see anything to the left or right of the portico. He emphasized that the top of the balustrade and roof line of the new building would not rise above the tops of the existing trees, which he said would remain in place. Views from further south showed the structure becoming less visible with distance. He said the public would get the clearest view of the side elevation of the proposed structure from 15th Street, indicating the Treasury Building and its pediment in the foreground and the east elevation of the ballroom visible beyond some trees. He said other views demonstrate that the ballroom structure would not be visible from four specific intersections indicated on the plan, and clarified that when viewed from the Jefferson Memorial, the balustrade of the ballroom might be visible just above the tree line due to the rising grade. From the steps of the U.S. Capitol, the parapet of the ballroom structure would be visible just below the tree line. He asked landscape architect Rick Parisi of M. Paul Friedberg and Associates to present the landscape design.
Mr. Parisi presented a plan of the new East Garden, commenting that it is designed in the spirit of the original Jacqueline Kennedy Garden, which featured boxwood and holly hedges with an array of perennials and annuals. Strong features of the original garden included evergreen holly trees that were topiary specimens; these trees were preserved and would be replanted in the new garden, along with new boxwood and holly hedges and perennial beds. The salvaged holly trees would be replanted symmetrically at the new grand stair, along with holly and boxwood hedges within planted flower beds. Another feature from the demolished garden that would be salvaged is the Mount Vernon brick, which would be used to create a plaza in front of the grand stair. New design elements include consistent large paving stones on the connecting pathways; the pavers would be approximately three by six feet or two by four feet. A small fountain disassembled and salvaged from the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden would be rebuilt and set against the new ballroom on an axial pathway between two replanted holly trees. Approximately four cast iron benches from the Kennedy Garden would be incorporated and notched into the perennial gardens along the pathways. The garden would step down at multiple levels to accommodate access to the lower levels of the ballroom; the largest grade change would be accommodated with a stone retaining wall dividing the upper-level garden from the lower edge along the new ballroom. He concluded with precedent images of the salvaged cast iron benches, Mount Vernon brick, and topiary holly trees, along with examples of the proposed boxwood and holly borders with perennial and annual plantings.
Secretary Luebke offered to show the physical model to help provide a sense of the relative scale of the various components of the project. Chairman Cook asked for the model to be rotated to show different views, particularly from the east side of the Treasury Building. He asked if the porticoes of the two buildings were aligned to each other across East Executive Avenue, and Mr. Baranes confirmed that they were.
Mr. Cook asked if additional evergreen trees could be planted near the structure. Mr. Parisi said that the intention is to plant only the salvaged holly trees, but that additional plantings could be considered within the berm along the east side of the ballroom. He asked if Mr. Cook is requesting evergreens for screening or for creating a sense of scale. Mr. Cook said that he is interested in both softening the structure to better suit the grounds, similar to how the Capitol grounds on the west side feature a slope that perches the Capitol on a hill, and in softening the southwest and southeast corners of the building. Mr. Parisi suggested that southern magnolias could be appropriate, noting that there are already several magnolias on the White House Grounds. Mr. Cook expressed support for this approach, noting the tradition of magnolias at the White House and identifying himself as being from Georgia. Mr. Parisi said that as a University of Florida graduate, he also appreciates southern magnolias.
Secretary Luebke then addressed the public comments received regarding the project, noting that in more than two decades of casework at the Commission he had never seen as much public engagement on a project. He said that more than two thousand messages had been received in the past week alone—far too many to review individually—but that he would summarize them and provide a few examples. He said the interest has been wide-ranging, from across all regions of the United States, both urban and rural, demonstrating a national concern transcending political, geographic, and demographic boundaries.
Mr. Luebke summarized that the response was overwhelmingly in opposition, with more than 99 percent of comments opposed to the project. Citizens across an entire spectrum of professional expertise levels articulated concerns related to several topics, including the demolition of the East Wing without permits or oversight, the large scale of the proposed ballroom compared to the White House, violations of historic preservation principles, a lack of transparency in funding and contracting, and a fundamental breakdown of democratic principles.
Mr. Luebke then read examples of public comments, starting with one of the handful of comments supportive of the project. The writer states that the country is on the world stage and that how the nation presents itself affects how it is viewed; other countries have massive and elegant meeting rooms for dinners and formal events, while the U.S. has a tent or the small dining room at the upper level of the State Department. Currently, event capacity is limited due to lack of space, extra work is created for staff due to the great distance from the kitchen, and the arrangements are expensive. The writer argues that modernization of facilities to make America competitive in the eyes of world leaders is not a bad thing, and that from research, the writer understands that the new structure would contain meeting rooms, the First Lady’s offices, guest quarters, and the ballroom, which would facilitate security during events, be cost-effective, and be a credit to future generations. He said the writer concludes that the Commission should vote to let the project proceed.
Mr. Luebke then read the first paragraph of a longer letter exemplary of the numerous comments in opposition to the project. He said the writer thanks the Commission for the opportunity to comment and states that in the grand tapestry of American history, the White House stands not only as a residence for the nation’s chief executive, but as an enduring emblem of democratic restraint, architectural elegance, and the collective will of the people. For over two centuries, its Neoclassical facade designed by James Hoban and refined through careful evolutions has symbolized a government of modesty and accessibility unadorned by the gilded excesses of monarchies past. Yet the proposal to erect a sprawling new ballroom at a staggering cost of up to $400 million threatens to unravel this sacred thread. He said the writer concludes that the ill-conceived addition, which has already led to the hasty demolition of the historic East Wing, represents an affront to the nation’s heritage, a circumvention of democratic processes, and a misallocation of resources that could better serve the republic, and that it must be halted lest hubris overshadow humility in the heart of the nation’s capital.
Mr. Luebke said the Commission had also received letters from several institutional groups, including the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C.; the National Trust for Historic Preservation; the District of Columbia Preservation League; the Cultural Landscape Foundation; and the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks. He then read a letter from the National Mall Coalition that he said is characteristic of the institutional feedback. He said the writer states that since its founding in 2000, the National Mall Coalition, a grassroots nonprofit organization of architects, historians, planners, and concerned citizens, has worked to protect the legacy of the historic 1791 L’Enfant Plan and 1902 McMillan Plans for the National Mall and to ensure the vitality, beauty, and continued active role of the Mall in the capital and in American life. The writer says that the first goal honors the visionary L’Enfant Plan, which laid out the Mall as an embodiment in landscape and architecture of America’s founding principles, and that the second goes to the heart of American democracy: the role of the people in decision making for the stage of American democracy. The writer states that public participation in design matters, and that the proposed ballroom violates both objectives. Not only does the structure’s 90,000-square-foot footprint and its height, which would be equal to that of the landmark White House structure, challenge the physical and symbolic purity of the President’s House as envisioned in the L’Enfant Plan, but its strong Neoclassical features—the rows of massive Corinthian columns with elaborate capitals and long expanses of large, two-story windows—overpower the more delicate and modest Ionic Neoclassicism of the historic White House. The writer states that ballroom seems to shout power and Roman Empire, whereas the White House with its curvilinear south portico suggests Roman Republic, as was intended and as it should be. The destruction of the historic East Wing, without concern for rules and laws governing public consultation, speaks for itself, showing a disregard for the public’s rightful role in decision making and design review of public buildings and lands as a sacred trust. He said the writer concludes that the lawsuit brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation calls on the courts to uphold the rules and laws protecting that sacred trust, and that the Coalition asks that, while awaiting the decision of the courts, the Commission defer any approvals for the project and not set a precedent that would be difficult if not impossible to overturn, and not support a further breach of public trust. He concluded that the writer hopes that the Commission will advise the design team to scale back the size and height as well as to tone down the Neoclassical architectural features that would overwhelm the modest White House design.
Chairman Cook said he had canvassed the Commission members individually regarding their views on the project, and he invited the members to speak and provide comments, noting he planned to make his own remarks as a consensus of what he had heard from the other members.
Ms. Carter expressed appreciation for the responsiveness to the Commission’s previous advice, commenting that removing the pediment from the south side was a very good move that helps restore balance and alignment to the design. She emphasized that the landscape would be a substantial component of the project and that people often fail to consider a building’s larger context; she said the landscape would be a beautiful addition to the White House and Washington, D.C.
Mr. Taylor expressed appreciation for the views and narrative provided, which he said were extremely enlightening in understanding how the structure would be integrated into the landscape from various vantage points.
Ms. Harris said the United States is the greatest country in the world with the greatest house in the world, and that the nation should have the greatest ballroom in the world. Regarding comments about the ballroom’s size, she said that accommodating 1,000 people is not that large by ballroom standards. She emphasized the importance of considering the ballroom within the larger White House campus, and she expressed appreciation for the responsiveness in removing the pediment. She concluded that the ballroom’s size would be consistent with the residence, and that she would support approving the project.
Chairman Cook said Americans have short memories and that the President’s House has been adjusted many times, even to the degree that President Chester A. Arthur installed aesthetically inappropriate Tiffany stained-glass windows to separate the cross hall from the entrance hall. He said that President Theodore Roosevelt removed those when he restored the building to its more Neoclassical beginnings, and that Mrs. Kennedy also did an extraordinary job in bringing the building to its current beauty through her work on furnishings, gardens, and protecting the house, which had suffered over the years. He said President Trump greatly admires what Mrs. Kennedy accomplished and intends for this project to honor what she did in the past; having been privileged to know Mrs. Kennedy himself, Mr. Cook also admires her work.
Mr. Cook also said that Corinthian capitals are preferred by the President, noting these represent the highest order of classical architecture. He said he has always wondered why James Hoban did not choose this order for the White House, as the buildings that house the other branches of government have Corinthian columns. He suggested that the north portico of the White House, a later addition also designed by Hoban, could be altered to have Corinthian capitals. He clarified that this suggestion has nothing to do with the ballroom project, other than the fact that the highest order of architecture had been considered here, which he felt was appropriate for the executive mansion as well.
Mr. Cook presented photographs of the White House renovation undertaken during the presidency of Harry S. Truman, when the house was completely gutted because it was in dire need of structural support. He noted this would not likely be allowed today by current standards of the National Trust and other government bodies. He also cited the east front of the U.S. Capitol, which was significantly expanded and nearly doubled using Georgia marble. He said that these gestures demonstrate that old buildings need adjustment, and that the sitting President had designed a very beautiful structure. He said that it is outrageous that the United States entertains the world in tents, and that no President has stepped up to correct this until President Trump. He said the house has been too small relative to its required functions since at least the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. He noted his great respect for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which gave him an award when he was fifteen years old for saving a theater in Atlanta, and he considers the organization extraordinarily effective; however, the Trust did not speak up when President Truman took the entire house apart, and he therefore questioned why there was such strong opposition now.
Mr. Cook said that removal of the pediment is a great improvement that significantly reduces the building’s massing, and that the additional softening with landscaping proposed by Mr. Parisi was desperately needed. He said the War Department has imposed extraordinary security requirements on the design that he was not fully aware of until the president took him and Ms. Patenaude through the project a few weeks ago; these requirements cannot be discussed publicly, but they must be addressed. He said the War Department is very happy with the significant improvements over current facilities, which are not up to current standards for keeping the nation, the city, and the executive safe for the foreseeable future. He said that the president is very focused on world peace, as is he, and that the president needs to be allowed to pursue that work.
Ms. Patenaude recalled the security breach during a 2009 state dinner that was held in a tent, and she emphasized that the security and safety of the president and his guests is extremely important in today’s world.
Chairman Cook thanked Ms. Patenaude and said he was aware of that security breach and others. He emphasized the serious implications of a foreign leader being vulnerable because an event is held in a tent, and he said the country must protect itself and its guests. He said that this beautiful facility has been desperately needed for more than 150 years, and that the president has provided a significant response with the removal of the pediment, which was quite significant.
Chairman Cook suggested a motion to approve the submission based on the comments made to date; upon second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission voted to approve the concept design. He then inquired about the next steps for the project. Secretary Luebke said that the normal process would be to review the project as a final design when the appropriate documentation is ready. Chairman Cook asked whether a motion was needed for that stage. Secretary Luebke clarified that the Commission would normally wait until the documentation was ready to make a final approval action. Chairman Cook said he understands this based on earlier discussions, but again asked whether a motion was needed. Secretary Luebke clarified that if the Commission wanted to take action on final design at the current meeting, they would need to do so explicitly, as the motion just passed was for concept design approval.
Chairman Cook suggested a motion to approve the project as a final submission; upon second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission voted to approve the final design. Secretary Luebke said that the action letter would state the Commission’s approval of the project as both a concept and final design, and that the project would not return for any further review; Chairman Cook confirmed this was correct. [Each vote was 5-0, as Mr. McCrery had previously recused himself and Mr. Kimball had departed the meeting for the day during the presentation of the project. At this point, Ms. Carter also departed the meeting, and returned during the review of item II.D.4.]
B. National Park Service / U.S. Secret Service
2. CFA 19/FEB/26-2, Four Corners Project, White House Grounds and President’s Park – West Side. Temporary security barriers and other modifications. Final.
The Commission approved the submission without a presentation earlier in the meeting, following agenda item II.A.
B. National Park Service
3. CFA 19/FEB/26-3, Time Capsule Project, Washington Monument Grounds. Modifications to plaza. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the project, submitted by the National Park Service (NPS) in partnership with the non-profit Friends of the Washington Statue, to install a time capsule within the plaza of the Washington Monument. The project commemorates the nation’s Semiquincentennial while celebrating the historic and symbolic relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In June 2025, an identical time capsule was installed within the foundation of the George Washington statue in London’s Trafalgar Square. He said the proposal would place a stainless-steel cylinder in a small vault underneath a replacement granite paver in the outermost dark granite ring of the plaza that encircles the monument. The location of the capsule would be marked by a metal inlay strip within the granite paver as an annotation of a geometric line running between the monument and the statue in London. The time capsule features thirteen flutes and would contain proclamations from both King Charles III and President Donald J. Trump. It has a diameter of eight inches and is one foot tall, and would be placed within a concrete vault with a four-inch-thick Portland limestone cap made from stone salvaged from the London statue’s plinth; the capstone would include an engraving of thirteen six-pointed stars. He asked Tammy Stidham, associate regional director for lands and planning at NPS, to introduce the project.
Ms. Stidham said the time capsule would be discreetly installed beneath a granite paver near the monument, aligned on a precise 49.5-degree axis connecting Washington and London. A subtle surface marker would identify the site without disturbing the historic landscape. She said the capsule in London contains soil from Virginia, while the U.S. twin would include soil from George Washington’s ancestral homes in England, reflecting shared origins and heritage. It would also feature winning student entries from Virginia’s “Expressions of Freedom” program paired with creative works from the United Kingdom, highlighting youth engagement and shared democratic values. She said the time capsule would serve as a message to future generations regarding shared sacrifice, democratic ideals, international partnership, and civic responsibility, while strengthening cultural diplomacy and extending educational opportunities; finally, it would reinforce the National Mall’s role as a living landscape of memory and meaning. She asked Brian Flynn, a landscape architect with the NPS National Mall and Memorial Parks unit, to present the proposal.
Mr. Flynn said the replacement “Cambrian Black” granite paver would match the existing, three by four feet and three inches thick, set on a one-inch mortar bed with one-quarter-inch-wide caulk joints. The top of the precast box containing the capsule would be set in place with epoxy and pins and sealed with a silicone bead. On the top of the secured concrete box would be the four-inch Portland limestone capstone from the original statue plinth in Trafalgar Square; the capstone would be engraved with thirteen six-pointed stars from Washington’s original headquarters flag, and a layer of cement board would protect the engravings. At the exposed surface on the plaza, the replacement paver would be installed on top of a bed of mortar. To demarcate the location of the time capsule, a small inlaid band of metal would be installed on the paver surface to differentiate it subtly from neighboring pavers. Stainless steel is proposed for the inlay to align with materials of the flagpoles and frames of in-ground lights. He said the marking would be prominent enough to stand out but not so prominent as to disrupt the surrounding cultural landscape, and its three-quarter inch width would be enough to differentiate it from surrounding joints but not so wide as to lose its linearity or require surface texture.
Mr. Flynn concluded by noting that the National Park Service was exploring opportunities for interpreting the plaza surface marking within the Washington Monument as part of the interpretive tour or with interpretive signage inside. The partner organization is also exploring installation of a reciprocal metal inlay strip within paving at Trafalgar Square to mirror the Washington installation.
Chairman Cook said he finds the project to be an extraordinary and wonderful gesture and the design to be very clever, and he encouraged its approval.
Mr. McCrery asked if the stainless-steel inlay would be the sole above-ground indicator of anything meaningful occurring underneath the paver; Mr. Flynn confirmed this would be the case. Mr. McCrery expressed interest in repositioning the thirteen six-pointed stars to the top surface of the paving stone to make it clearer to visitors that something of importance is located below. He observed that while the line indicated a vector, the stars could indicate both a vector and a location. He suggested that the alignment with Trafalgar Square was already accomplished through the off-kilter location of the paving stone shown in the site plan, but that stars on the surface would prompt more curiosity and inquiry than a stainless-steel strip. Ms. Stidham responded that the marker is intentionally subtle, as a more prominent marker would require Congressional authorization, per the Commemorative Works Act. She said NPS plans to interpret this location in different ways to help visitors understand how to find the capsule without running afoul of the law.
Mr. McCrery questioned why the addition of thirteen stars would trigger such review, but the stainless-steel strip would not. Ms. Stidham said the strip would be a simple delineation, and anything beyond simply delineating the particular paver would be considered a commemorative work. An interpretive wayside sign could still be located elsewhere, as that would not require Congressional approval. Mr. McCrery continued to question why the strip did not require Congressional authorization, noting it would be an indicator of something occurring underneath and was designed to be an outward sign. Ms. Stidham said the stars would fall under the definition of a commemorative feature as explicitly defined by the Act, while the strip would not fall into that definition.
Mr. McCrery said that the entire project could be considered a commemorative act, with every single aspect of the proposal intending to commemorate something, and he suggested that this fact is being suppressed in order to quickly advance the project. He acknowledged that speed is not necessarily undesirable, but he maintained that the project is commemorative in nature. Ms. Stidham acknowledged that the strip could be seen as a commemorative object, but said that in its interest to work quickly to meet the requirements of installation before the Semiquincentennial, NPS worked with the Friends Group to develop an approach that did not require Congressional authorization, which would take significantly longer to achieve. She noted that something might change in the future, but for this particular project and timeline, the team is working to meet the project’s needs while also providing a future opportunity for interpretation beyond an explicit symbol on the paver above the capsule.
Mr. McCrery expressed significant concern with the phrase “interpret it in many different ways” given the endless possibilities of interpreting George Washington’s memory in today’s culture and political environment, and he asked how it would be interpreted elsewhere on the grounds. Ms. Stidham responded that this is still being worked through, but it would be consistent with current executive orders related to such documentation and representation in a public forum. Mr. McCrery concluded his comments and welcomed thoughts from other Commission members.
Mr. Cook asked whether they could move to approve the project in time for the Semiquincentennial, with the condition that NPS would pursue additional commemorative features in the future. Mr. McCrery responded that he could support approving the project if it were strictly temporary, and with the condition that upon the conclusion of 2026, the applicant would return with proposals for a permanent design. He suggested the strip was entirely conceptual and would be lost on most viewers, and he characterized the proposal as a measure to avoid Congressional oversight on the Mall in order to meet the strict deadline of celebrating the Semiquincentennial. He again suggested that any approval should be time-limited, with the understanding that a more permanent and congressionally approved design would be prepared and brought to the right oversight bodies, including the Commission, in 2027. Ms. Stidham responded that this would be unachievable for NPS, as it is not allowed to lobby Congress and request such legislation; an outside entity would need to make such a request. Mr. McCrery asked whether the partner organization supporting the project could lobby Congress. Ms. Stidham said this has not been discussed with the organization and that she could not guarantee its willingness to lobby Congress. She noted that the proposed changes would be fairly permanent given the nature of time capsules, and she requested permission to move forward with the project to keep the proposed schedule while returning with interpretive elements in the future. She said that this is a common practice of NPS and that she is confident the agency could allow for the public’s understanding and enjoyment of the time capsule in a way that would not require Congressional approval.
Secretary Luebke suggested that the Commission could strongly encourage additional symbolic features be incorporated in the future. Mr. McCrery reiterated his concern that if there was no symbol of any kind proposed for the paver, then NPS would have flown under the radar of any required Congressional action; however, once anything is placed there, it would trigger Congressional oversight and ultimately presidential approval. He reiterated his position that NPS is proposing to install a strip that is clearly both communicative and symbolic while maintaining that the strip is neither. He said he does not understand the argument and believes that the Commission and the people of the United States deserve a more rigorous and straightforward presentation. He reiterated that strip is clearly intended to be indicative of something, though it did not communicate anything particularly well, and he suggested that whatever is put on top of the paver should indicate that something is present at that location rather than referring to something occurring in Trafalgar Square. He concluded by stating that the Commission is being asked to approve a commemorative feature that lacks Congressional approval.
Ms. Patenaude asked if the proposal was approved by the Secretary of the Interior or by the director of the National Park Service. Ms. Stidham confirmed that the Secretary is well aware of this project and she believes he may have participated in a recent event regarding the project. Ms. Patenaude asked whether the Secretary approved the proposal as presented; Ms. Stidham said the request for this project came through the Secretary’s office.
Ms. Patenaude offered a motion to approve the proposal as presented; upon second by Ms. Harris, a majority of the Commission voted 5-2 to approve the final design, with Mr. McCrery and Mr. Taylor opposed.
Secretary Luebke asked whether it was the will of the Commission to include language encouraging exploration of additional symbolic features if possible. Chairman Cook confirmed this request, and Mr. Luebke said this guidance would be included in the formal action letter. Mr. Cook asked about the status of the Trafalgar Square installation; Ms. Stidham confirmed it was completed, with the time capsule placed in June 2025.
C. Union Station Redevelopment Corporation
Washington Union Station, 50 Massachusetts Avenue, NE. New lighting plan. Concept. (Previous: CFA 18/SEP/25-2)
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept submission for lighting improvements at Union Station. He said Union Station is the city’s grand Beaux-Arts railroad station, designed by architect and planner Daniel Burnham and completed in 1907. According to the applicant, the project represents a critical initiative to enhance safety and public experience at this historic multimodal transit hub. He said the design approach is guided by three objectives: to improve public safety and security by elevating light levels and creating a more welcoming environment; to increase energy efficiency by replacing outdated fixtures and internal lamps with low-energy LED technology; and to enhance the architecture by introducing a layered hierarchy of light that reinforces spatial rhythm and historic character. He said the exterior scope encompasses the southern facade of the building on Columbus Circle, adjacent pedestrian sidewalks, drop-off lanes, the colonnade, and the loggia. Included in this work is the in-kind replacement of streetlight poles known as Twin-20s, improvements to eighteen existing Washington Globe poles at either end of the building, installation of in-ground fixtures at the piers, accent lighting for text panels and the colossal statues above the main cornice, and low-profile lights on the masonry ziggurats at the corners of the main block. All fixtures would be dimmable, with a standard color temperature of 3000 Kelvin, which provides a slightly warm white light. The interior scope includes lighting improvements and supplemental fixtures within the main hall, west hall, east hall, and retail concourse.
Mr. Luebke said the Commission last reviewed the project in September 2025, during which time the members expressed support for the general project goals but did not take an action, finding that the design appeared too bright and uniform. They recommended refinements to fixture placement, color temperature, and illumination levels to emphasize architectural detailing while maintaining necessary safety illumination. They also recommended against the incorporation of permanent capacity for colored lighting, which they advised would be difficult to monitor. He said the project team has returned with a revised proposal, and he asked Doug Carr, president and CEO of the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC), to begin the presentation.
Mr. Carr said Union Station is the only building within the Monumental Core that is continuously open to the public, serving as the city’s primary multimodal hub for District residents, workers, and visitors. The station receives more than 30 million visitors per year and serves as a critical anchor of the Northeast Corridor connecting Washington and Boston; it is also nationally significant as a symbol of American architectural grandeur and transportation innovation. He reiterated the three guiding objectives and said that over the years, many studies have addressed individual aspects of the station’s lighting, focusing separately on operations, energy efficiency, public safety, and historic preservation. Rather than continuing to treat each issue separately, the team developed a comprehensive lighting master plan that draws on past lighting studies, aligns with published guidance and policy frameworks for historic properties, and meets the full range of regulatory requirements while celebrating the quality of the historic building. He said that the goal for this concept submission is to solidify a shared and balanced consensus on the master plan across historic review partners for the primary public spaces in and around the station. He asked Brian Gafney, principal at Antunovich Associates, to present the design.
Mr. Gafney said the design team approached the lighting upgrades holistically, considering the experience and transition between six main spaces, interior to exterior, all working in concert with each other. He began with the south facade, which would be illuminated from twenty-five existing light poles adjacent to the building, with six controlled by the National Park Service (NPS), six by the D.C. Department of Transportation, and thirteen by USRC. Additionally, the team has provided design support to NPS to re-lamp the remaining single-fixture poles within Columbus Circle to match the color temperature of the other pole lighting while incorporating shields to reduce light emissions into the night sky and reduce energy demand. He said the team is proposing to replace the lamps within historic light fixtures throughout the executive entry, main entry, carriage porch, and two connecting loggias—collectively referred to as the front colonnade—and adding a small number of lights to illuminate statues and cast light onto vaulted ceilings. Existing light fixtures within the main hall would be replaced to cast light onto the vaulted ceiling, creating indirect lighting at the floor. In the west and east halls, existing light fixtures within the laylights would be replaced, as well as the lights along the cornices. Finally, within the retail concourse, the uplight fixtures on top of the retail spaces and the bank of fluorescent fixtures backlighting the laylights would be replaced.
Mr. Gafney said that the team studied the guidance for building lighting hierarchy established by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to determine the appropriate illumination levels for the station and to ensure it would not exceed “tier-one” buildings within the Monumental Core. As the station is considered a “tier-two” structure, it would not be lit as brightly as iconic buildings such as the U.S. Capitol and the White House, deliberately remaining at less than half the foot-lamberts of these buildings. He presented examples of similar tier-two buildings, including the main branch of the New York Public Library and the Carnegie Library in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Gafney provided a summary of precedents that informed the proposed lighting design, noting that the lighting of the Petit Palais in Paris is closely aligned with the proposed approach. He said there are two main approaches to lighting a facade: grazing light across the surface from lights mounted to the building, or using crossing spotlights placed at a distance. He said the Petit Palais is beautifully lit and carefully reveals the building’s detail by crossing spotlights on the facade, and this approach aligns with the goals for lighting the exterior of the station. He noted that as both an iconic building and a functioning multimodal hub for the District, when viewers see the building lit at night, they should be able to recognize it as what they saw during the day.
Mr. Gafney said the station is the terminus of three significant view corridors: Delaware Avenue, Louisiana Avenue, and F Street. He said NCPC guidance states that this tier-two structure should appear brighter than the surrounding street lighting but should still remain subordinate to tier-one structures. Along the radiating vista of Louisiana Avenue, the proposed condition shows a subtle increase in lighting to define the station as the terminus of the vista without overpowering the surrounding context, with the side of the main hall’s barrel vault also illuminated. Along F Street looking east toward the station, the proposed condition shows the lighting giving the station presence yet providing subtle, soft evening light, with the view corridor shared with the Postal Museum; the side of the main hall’s barrel vault is also illuminated from this perspective.
Mr. Gafney then presented views of the south facade as seen from Columbus Circle, showing the existing condition where the facade is currently lit by residual light spill from streetlights and historic pendants directing light downward along some of the piers. He presented an animation showing the refinement of the design, beginning with a rendered approximation of the current lighting condition. The initial proposal was intended to evenly illuminate the three main elements of the building while softening the light along the connecting loggias between them. After review with stakeholder agencies, the team adjusted the lighting optics to further define the hierarchy of the building ornamentations and edges. The design was further refined by accentuating the columns and statues as well as the sides of the barrel vault.
Mr. Gafney said that all lights would be dimmable down to seven percent and controllable at both the individual fixture and circuit levels. This enables the design team and USRC to make adjustments after installation to accommodate aesthetic and safety concerns. He said all the variations shown in the animation do not change the locations of the lights, only their intensity, aim, and the focus or optics installed. He said that the design goal is to create a glow from within where the light intensity is greatest from the interior spaces of the building, reducing intensity through the porticos and loggia openings, and further toning down the facade. This approach celebrates the building’s exterior architectural elements while accentuating the generous depth of the front facade and creating a welcoming feeling. He said the four stone ziggurats, the ten legionnaire statues, and the overall facade would be lit from the existing twin-20 lamp poles, new in-ground lighting at the base of the piers, and the glow from the colonnade and the main hall beyond. Within the colonnade, the internal optics of the existing wall sconces and dome lights would be replaced; low-profile LEDs and small uplights would be added to accentuate the architecture and provide indirect lighting to illuminate the space. He emphasized that there would be no modifications to the cases, lenses, supports, poles, or junction plates of any historic light fixture. For the carriage porch on the west end of the station where the Metro entrance is located, Mr. Gafney said the proposed design uses a similar strategy to the front entry, replacing lamps within the historic sconces and supplementing them with low-profile lights at the spring points of the arches.
Mr. Gafney summarized that the proposed lighting would respect and enhance the quality of the station at night while meeting safety and security requirements and reducing energy demands. He said the changes to existing fixtures and the installation of new fixtures are all reversable and would not have a permanent physical impact on the building.
Chairman Cook asked for any additional information relevant to the project. Secretary Luebke said the staff finds the design to be responsive to the Commission’s previous comments and believes there is good support from other affected agencies, including the National Capital Planning Commission and the D.C. Historic Preservation Office, though details remained to be worked out regarding potential mockups that might need review.
Mr. McCrery expressed appreciation for the thorough, professional, and high-level presentation, particularly the intention to not impact the building’s historic fabric. He expressed support for the design and said he would consider making a motion to approve the project as a final design, with the condition that colored lighting would not be incorporated into the lighting design for either the exterior or interior.
Mr. Cook said he was involved in the restoration of the spire of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, and he noted that the interior lighting plan as executed there is not as beautiful as what is proposed for this project. He said he is very impressed with the proposal and suggested a consensus to approve the concept as a final design.
Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery, the Commission voted to approve the concept submission as a final design. Secretary Luebke said the staff would coordinate with the applicant to schedule potential mockups and receipt of the final project documentation.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 19/FEB/26-5, Burrville Elementary School, 801 Division Avenue, NE. New building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal, submitted on behalf of D.C. Public Schools (DCPS), for the construction of a new building and landscape for Burrville Elementary School, located in the Deanwood neighborhood of Washington, D.C.; the existing red-brick Brutalist building, dating from 1979, would be demolished. He said the area has a rich history, including its status as one of the District’s oldest African American suburbs. The immediate context consists of primarily single-family and duplex houses set back from the street with generous planted areas at the sidewalk. He said the site topography includes significant grade changes, dropping more than thirty-five feet from Division Avenue to Hayes Street, with this change in elevation driving the building placement and allowing the building itself to act as a retaining wall along the steeper slopes. The proposed design positions the building to maintain a strong civic presence on Division Avenue, with the cafeteria, welcome center, and gym set at that public edge. A double-height library space would be the heart of the school, acting as a central connector and reinforcing its role as a hub for learning, collaboration, and activity. He said the material palette consists of tan-colored brick, metal and translucent panels, areas of punched windows, and curtainwall. The program includes a separately operated child development center at the northeast corner, with its own dedicated play area. He asked Tom Henderson, project manager from the D.C. Department of General Services, to begin the presentation.
Mr. Henderson noted that the developer GCS-Sigal and architect Perkins Eastman DC serve as the design-build team for the project, and he asked architects Kristina Vidal, Miranda Ford, and Snigdha Agarwal to present the design.
Ms. Vidal said the new school will serve 241 students from pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. The project would incorporate a small independently operated child development center serving about sixty infants and toddlers. She said several design principles were developed for the project, with the goal of creating a civic presence being the most salient. She presented feedback from the school community, noting a desire for publicly accessible spaces that can support both the school community and the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Vidal summarized the site analysis, noting that the school property has street frontage nearly all the way around. Division Avenue, NE, is classified as a major connector street, with a bus line and faster-moving traffic. James Place on the north side is a quieter two-way neighborhood street with speed tables; Hunt Place forms a small cul-de-sac on the east side; and Hayes Street on the south side is essentially a one-way alley. She said that having several street frontages provided flexibility in laying out the building on the site. The design team wanted to take advantage of prominent views from the intersections at Division Avenue. Current traffic patterns showed students and staff arriving via several transportation methods including foot, bus, and car.
Ms. Vidal presented the building massing, noting that the design is intended to give the building a stronger civic presence along Division Avenue than the existing, with the northwest and southwest wings splayed to more directly face the two intersections. The significant topographical change across the site allows the building to have at-grade entrances on two different floors: a main entrance off Division Avenue and a secondary student and staff entrance on the more protected side, located off one of the quieter side streets.
Ms. Ford said the site design has been coordinated with existing street trees, several of which the District Department of Transportation has identified as healthy and has recommended retaining; the design therefore accommodates their critical root zones. She said the proposed building shape creates multiple exterior zones responding to interior programming while working with the significant grading. A formal entry plaza off Division Avenue would lead to the main entrance at the upper level of the school, with tree plantings creating a balanced entry experience within the asymmetrical grading. On James Place to the north, a loading dock would be screened from the main view along Division Avenue, and bioretention plantings would screen a small playground for the child development center at the lower level. She said a generous entry plaza at the corner of James and Hunt Places would serve as the main pickup/drop-off location for students arriving by car, with a wide walkway leading to the central entrance. The staff parking lot would be located in the southeast corner of the site, off Hayes Street. A turf field for soccer, a vegetable garden, and an outdoor classroom to the east of the building are several of the outdoor amenities proposed.
Ms. Ford said the main entrance would welcome visitors into a central two-story connector where administrative space would overlook the library at the heart of the school. A community wing and two academic wings would extend from the central space, with special program areas located at connection points. At the upper level, the community wing includes the gym, dining, stage, and music room. One of the new academic wings would have grouped classrooms for grades two through five, with a discovery commons space at the knuckle. The south wing would contain kindergarten and first grade classrooms, as well as the art classroom, a discovery commons space, and the principal’s office overlooking the site. At the lower level, pre-K classrooms would be grouped below the K–1 classrooms and adjacent to the early childhood playground. Specialty classrooms would be at the center of the northeast academic wing. Back-of-house spaces would be mostly below grade, and the mechanical penthouse is designed to work with the massing of the rest of the building; the mechanical units would not be highly visible on the roof.
Ms. Agarwal presented the building exteriors, beginning with the view from Division Avenue, the primary civic frontage. She said the intent is to create a facade that feels both institutional and welcoming, with a clear identity at the primary street frontage. While the massing is expressed clearly through the large gym and dining volume, it is also broken down to maintain a comfortable pedestrian scale appropriate for students. The primary fabric of the school is seen on the academic wings, with the glassy connector running from front to back to form a hyphen between the two academic wings. She said the facades would be organized by program area, with each zone responding to specific needs for light, scale, and privacy; a consistent material palette would tie everything together. The central connector would be more transparent, highlighting movement and connection. The gym is balanced with an expressive play of solid and void. Art spaces would mimic the language of the gym, opening out to the more community-oriented programs. The classrooms would follow a more regular and rhythmic pattern of windows in groupings of three, forming much of the exterior fabric. She described the proposed materials as simple and durable. Light tan brick would be the primary facade material, while metal panels in light and dark tones would provide contrast and help define certain volumes at strategic places. Glazing is proposed for public areas to increase transparency and make the school feel welcoming. Metal canopies would define the entries and provide weather protection.
Chairman Cook thanked the team for its presentation. Citing President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again,” which calls for classical, traditional, or regional architecture when developing new federal facilities, he asked how the Commission should approach the review of new buildings proposed by the District of Columbia Government.
Mr. McCrery said the Executive Order applies to federal buildings and not to D.C. public schools; however, architecture can ennoble the human beings who use it, and therefore the architects should be designing as such. He said that the District of Columbia is apparently committed stylistically to a sense of contemporaneity and Modernist massing and material strategies, which often involves graphic design instead of architectural design, and he said that he does not much like this approach. He cited the strong tradition of exceptionally beautiful D.C. public school buildings, ranging from the late decades of the nineteenth century through the end of World War II. He noted that these buildings were built by a society that understood that public buildings, especially those designed to form young citizens, had to be exceptional. He said that unfortunately, many of these buildings have been disposed of by the D.C. Government and purchased by developers who understand their inherent beauty and value, converting them to highly desirable condominiums and apartments. He said many D.C. mayors have embraced Modernist architecture as a way of distinguishing the District from the federal government, which he thinks is not the best-informed way of proceeding. He acknowledged that some of the more contemporary Modernist buildings are good and were therefore imitated by other architects, but he said he did not think that any truly ennoble the experience and elevate the act of educating the nation’s youth. He clarified that as he understands it, the Commission could encourage but cannot force the D.C. Government to abide by the mandate to make federal architecture beautiful.
Chairman Cook asked the applicants if they would prefer to reconsider the design and return or if they wished to discuss the design and receive a decision from the Commission immediately. Ms. Vidal said that the team would welcome feedback on the design as presented. Mr. Cook asked if the Commission members had any feedback; hearing none, he requested Mr. McCrery make a motion to recommend against the design of the project. Secretary Luebke asked the applicant team if it wanted more feedback on the current design or if it was asking for an immediate action on the design.
Ms. Vidal responded that the members of the design team were not intending to design a Neoclassical structure that resembles a federal institution. She said that they recognized that public schools are civic institutions and should appear as such, and that the design attempts to incorporate symmetry around the main entrances, echoing features present in the beautiful buildings Mr. McCrery cited. She noted that typical school buildings from the 1920s and 30s throughout the city had tall windows that let in natural light, as that was how classrooms were primarily lit at that time. The proposed design therefore has windows large enough to allow light to penetrate the interior space and provide high quality environments, which research indicates is important for learning.
Ms. Vidal acknowledged that the design is not Neoclassical, but she believes that it tries to engage students and give them excitement as they explore their school and make their way to their classrooms. It also has space typologies that were not present in historic school buildings, which were largely double-loaded corridors with classrooms on both sides. While those buildings did many things well, they are not an accurate reflection of modern educational pedagogy. She said that at the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century, there had been a shift from teacher-led instruction to more interactive peer-to-peer learning, whether in groups or through team activities, team projects, or the use of technology. All of these things were changing the ways students learned, which rippled through the classroom types and learning environments being incorporated into schools. These changes on the inside then influenced changes on the outside of the building. She said the team believes that the design is consistent with public schools throughout the city and that it fulfills the requirement to create high-performance learning environments, with the ultimate goal of enabling students to pursue their education with as few obstacles as possible to achieving the best learning outcomes.
Mr. McCrery said it is a common fallacy that traditional architecture is not able to respond to contemporary educational practices. He characterized Ms. Vidal’s response as something that many architects, designers, and writers repeat without critical thought, and he said that this type of thinking thoroughly permeates design practice today. He acknowledged that education has changed from the earlier “sage on a stage” model to a more peer-to-peer learning environment. However, he said it is not a requirement that contemporary architecture be used to house contemporary education practices. He said that by this logic, the proposed building would need to be torn down in twenty years to accommodate further changes in education. As buildings must last longer, tradition has responded to all sorts of contemporary movements throughout time. He said Modernism or contemporaneity is not the minimum requirement for accommodating new ideas and practices.
Chairman Cook noted that he has been educated in both modern and traditional buildings. He emphasized that the Commission members are not referring strictly to Neoclassical buildings but rather traditional ones, which have flourished in the District of Columbia and are of extraordinary quality. He noted that he is sitting in a classroom at his Millennium Gate Museum in Atlanta, where all the classrooms resemble colonial Georgian rooms, and he said that students really enjoy them because they are exquisite and beautiful, and also that they feel the rooms belong to them. He encouraged the team to consider their comments, as the Commission members disagree with the current architectural approach.
Mr. Henderson from DGS welcomed specific comments on the design in order to make the appropriate adjustments. Chairman Cook confirmed that this could certainly be accommodated; Mr. McCrery invited and encouraged the other Commission members to share their perspectives.
Mr. Taylor asked for specific examples indicating the relationship between contemporary education practices and the proposed design. Ms. Vidal said her firm designs schools based on the programming within the building and how that relates to the exterior. She acknowledged that the building plan is not a traditional shape, as the historic schools were usually simple boxes. She said this is the first major diversion from a traditional school. In addition, the classrooms are groups into “neighborhoods,” which helps create learning opportunities that cross boundaries between classrooms; a large box would likely not offer this, with the architectural result being the two separate wings. She said the gymnasium wing is its own individualized space that would be an after-hours access point for the community. As public schools have become a resource for local communities over the last 100 years, the older school buildings do not offer the ability to provide appropriate separation between the classroom and community functions; this is therefore a priority for the overall design. She said that regarding communication between interior and exterior programming, there is less of a main frontage along Division Avenue, which they could have easily addressed with a large rectangular volume. Instead, the approach was to create a plaza and a separate zone to the north, with the loading dock separated from Division Avenue. The student spaces to the east would have a much more organic mixture of typical daily uses, such as recess and breaks.
Ms. Ford said the regular window groupings and patterning across the academic wings is similar to what is seen in historic buildings in the District, as is the masonry, and she said this design approach speaks to the intended civic character. She noted that the existing 1970s building is part of an architectural legacy that was a strong departure from previous school buildings. The existing building is also not accessible, which is another reason why it is proposed to be demolished. She noted that most of the significant historic school buildings from the 1920s have been approached as major renovations with possible additions for the programming if necessary. In the case of this school, the existing building did not have the same grandeur, historic importance, or functional ability to fit the programming. The new building is intended to address the educational excellence, safe environment, and civic expression sought by the District.
Ms. Vidal added that the discovery commons is a relatively new program space that is different from a conventional classroom, and this space can be different for each school depending on the specific programs and available resources. She said perhaps the biggest difference in how the design reflects changes in pedagogy are the larger spaces arranged along a circulation corridor where students can gather and chat between classes on their way to and from recess, or where groups can work on a group project for a different curriculum unit. These are spaces that were not included in traditional schools, and they really help enrich the sense of identity in a school community. She said this is why the exteriors have a different design language in the areas of these special programming spaces.
Ms. Patenaude expressed appreciation for the design features focused on safety and security as a grandmother of six young children; she requested more information on the community’s involvement in the design, as well as on the surrounding built context. Ms. Vidal said the school is only three blocks from the Maryland border, with the context being composed of small single-family and duplex houses; many are frame construction with plank siding, with a few larger institutional buildings featuring brick facades, including a modestly scaled two-story church with a newer addition. Woodson High School, a relatively new D.C. public school, is also nearby.
Mr. McCrery observed that the context is a relatively even mixture of two-story single- family and duplex structures, with porches, sidewalks, trees, and on-street parking. He said the Tabernacle Baptist Church on Division Avenue looks like a traditional church, with a mission-oriented addition that looks institutional. Ms. Ford said this is the only non-residential institutional building in the immediate area; Mr. Cook commented that the church is pretty and attractive.
Secretary Luebke said that the Commission members may wish to provide some specific comments on the proposed design, and he suggested that they might address the larger issues rather than particular details.
Mr. McCrery said that the Commission is not usually presented with a project proposing a complete demolition of an existing building, and that this presents the opportunity for a clean-slate approach to the design. He said the Commission and the citizens of the District of Columbia should expect more, and he recommended that the project team go back to the drawing board and make a work of architecture that is appropriate to the neighborhood, that holds the traditional setback lines, and that is ultimately a beautiful contemporary place with beautiful contemporary traditional architecture.
Chairman Cook asked if the Commission would be able to break for an executive session to allow the members to have a brief discussion alone. Secretary Luebke said that this is not the Commission’s practice, and that it would be difficult given the technical constraints of the meeting.
Ms. Patenaude requested an answer regarding the community’s involvement in the school design. Ms. Vidal said that DCPS has a formal community engagement process in which a school improvement team (SIT)—comprised of the principal, one or two other administrators, a handful of teachers, and several community members—meets to learn about the project and communicate important values. Two meetings are held at each phase of design, which includes concept design, schematic design, and design development. There are additional meetings for playgrounds, specific furniture and equipment, and contractor meetings as the project nears construction. She said other meetings with members of the community help keep people informed of progress and what to expect during construction.
Ms. Ford added that this particular project has proceeded through the concept and schematic design levels, with the SIT having met five times. As this is a new building, many concepts were explored before establishing a program and massing design for the building that the community supported. At the most recent presentation of the building exteriors, the community expressed excitement regarding the design, and people spoke about their priorities that had been incorporated into the design. She said they have been a good partner in the process and are excited about the prospects of the new school building.
Ms. Patenaude asked about the budget for the total new construction; Ms. Ford said the 85,000-square-foot building is budgeted for $85 million.
Ms. Harris asked for a description of Woodson High School, asking if it is contemporary or traditional; Ms. Vidal said it is a very contemporary structure. Mr. Cook observed that the existing Burrville school has very few windows; Ms. Ford said that the provision of daylight was a common theme in the community’s feedback.
Chairman Cook asked the Commission members for guidance on how they would like to proceed, suggesting that they could help the applicants along while also letting others know that the Commission intends to take a stand to compel people to start building buildings that are truly beautiful and inspiring. He recalled being in the minority in opposing similar projects during his previous time on the Commission, and that approving them broke his heart. Mr. McCrery requested that the project be redesigned along the lines of emulating the long-established tradition of excellent school architecture that is readily evident throughout the city. He said buildings should be looked at as precedent, not as departure points; even buildings that had been converted to different uses should serve as precedents, as they are typologically and historically school buildings. He said the leadership of DCPS and other D.C. Government decision makers should understand that the Commission is making a commitment to excellence in civic architecture, which has its roots in architectural tradition. He suggested that the Commission meet formally or informally with these and other leaders to help assist, guide, and encourage the District of Columbia to commission much better architecture for its public buildings, especially schools. He concluded that his preference is for the design to be reset and be based on a study of the District’s excellent traditional school buildings.
Mr. Cook expressed support for the basic form of the new building and commended the extensive windows, which he said would create a much more open environment and would be an extraordinary improvement over the existing school. He urged the applicant to consider Mr. McCrery’s comments, and suggested adjustment of the current form to a degree that the Commission could give an approval, as this is the position the Commission would be taking for another three years. Ms. Ford asked how the project could move forward, as the intention is to have the building completed in 2028. Mr. Cook said it should be clear from the Commission’s reviews earlier in the day that it is eager to get construction projects moving very fast. He said that the comments had been quite clear, and he noted that his suggestion was not to start over but rather to rework the current design to be more acceptable to the Commission. Ms. Patenaude suggested that Mr. McCrery could meet with the design team to give more specific guidance; Mr. Cook responded that he had been told this would not be appropriate. Secretary Luebke said it is standard government practice that members of an adjudicatory government body not work outside of public meetings with those seeking an approval. Ms. Patenaude noted they were sharing comments right now, and said that she wanted to make sure the applicant is equipped to meet the tight schedule. Secretary Luebke said he understands that the spirit of the comment is to get the work done.
Mr. McCrery said that the three other school projects on the agenda may need to be addressed in a similar way, and that the issue is not with the architects themselves, who were clearly doing what had been requested by their client. He said the most effective approach would be to meet with D.C. Government leaders and offer positive, encouraging, and resolute policy guidance regarding the fundamental issue of architectural style that had been raised. Mr. Cook asked if the staff could arrange this type of meeting at the Commission’s offices, and he invited DCPS leadership and staff members to attend. Mr. Luebke said this type of meeting could be facilitated.
Secretary Luebke summarized the consensus to take no action on the case, and he reiterated the Commission’s request to rework the details and materials of the design while working with the general building form as presented.
Chairman Cook agreed, suggesting the use of a brick sympathetic to the nearby church and other buildings. He advised developing the school building to be a sympathetic gesture at the top of the architectural hierarchy of the neighborhood, serving as a place of pride for the community. Mr. McCrery added that embracing the city’s best examples of historic and traditional schools should be the starting point. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
2. CFA 19/FEB/26-6, Ketcham Elementary School, 1919 15th Street, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design submission for renovations and additions to Ketcham Elementary School, located in the Anacostia neighborhood, adjacent to the recently completed Anacostia Recreation Center. He said that the existing historic school was completed in 1908 to a design by Snowden Ashford, D.C.’s first municipal architect, with additions completed by others in the 1940s and 1960s. The historic three-story building features a hipped roof and an arched central entrance along 15th Street. The proposal would retain the original 1908 building and the 1940s wing, while demolishing the 1960s structure. Two new three-story pavilions would be inserted at the corners of the historic block, with new rear additions for classrooms and for the gymnasium and cafeteria. He said the main entrance would be relocated to the new classroom addition, as the historic entrance does not meet current standards for accessibility. The design proposes a tan brick similar to the existing historic building, with similarly colored cementitious panels used on the rear addition facades. He asked Camilo Bearman, principal at DLR Group, to present the design.
Mr. Bearman said the L-shaped site is bounded by Marion Barry Avenue, 14th, and 15th Streets, SE, with the southern edge adjacent to the newly constructed Anacostia Recreation Center. The southern edge includes an easement that was formerly U Street, which now functions as part of the school’s open space. He described three primary access points along the 15th Street side: the functional daily entrance, the ceremonial historic entrance of the historic school in the middle, and an entrance to the Head Start program. He said the context is composed mostly of two- and three-story residences, with brick as the prevailing building material throughout the neighborhood, which he described as a walkable residential and commercial area designed at pedestrian scale with porches, stoops, and porticos contributing to the streetscape. He said that the primary focus of the school is the 15th Street facade, which is the original 1908 schoolhouse and a key component of the historic structure, flanked by the yellow-brick addition from the 1940s and the brown-brick 1960s addition visible further in the background. He noted that the 1960 addition is proposed for removal as it no longer meets the District of Columbia’s educational specifications.
Mr. Bearman said the new additions include small extensions flanking the main facade of the 1908 building, two classroom additions on either side of the 1940s multipurpose room, and a new dining and gym addition at the rear. He noted that the landscape to the south is intended to harmonize with the landscape design of the recreation center, and that it would incorporate play zones and circulation pathways for students. He said that the landscape plan illustrates the arrangement of safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation across the campus, and indicated the service and back-of-house entrances, the small visitor parking lot, and the new entry plaza that would be the primary pedestrian zone for students. He said the 1908 building would remain prominently centered in the overall composition. On either side of the original structure, two small extensions would be symmetrically positioned, and he noted that the height of the small classroom additions would be held below the existing cornice line, allowing the original facade to maintain its visual prominence, with new window openings proportionally aligned with the existing windows. The design harmonizes with the historic building through the use of brick as the primary material, the repetition of the window rhythm radiating outward from the center, and the continued use of brick pilasters rising from an elevated base. He said that the original front entrance is not accessible, but that it would continue to serve as a ceremonial entrance, and that adding a ramp to the front of the building would be detrimental to the historical facade. The new functional entrance would recall the proportions of the historic portico in the middle.
Mr. Bearman said the design of the rear additions would be compatible with the existing historic buildings though the use of similar fenestration patterns and architectural details, such as pilasters and areas of brick spandrels above and below the windows. The central volume incorporates windows sized to reflect typical classroom spaces, similar to the historic buildings, revealing the scale and function of those spaces. However, the dining and gym addition features larger-scale openings, signaling its more public role as a gathering and community space. He said the proposed brick is slightly lighter and less yellow to differentiate it from the original yellow brick, which is more saturated in color. Textured panels would be used as accents and infills around the windows to add detail and complementary texture to the brick composition.
Mr. Bearman clarified that all of the additions would be two or three stories to remain in scale with the rest of the neighborhood and the historic structures. He noted that the new functional front door with signage above would be visible from the sidewalk and would provide clear wayfinding while not competing with the original front door. He concluded that the new additions would extend the architectural rhythms of the historic buildings and incorporate a balanced material palette, creating a unified sense of place while celebrating the school’s long and meaningful history.
Chairman Cook expressed strong support for the project and characterized the design as sympathetic to the original building. He asked for more information about the infill panels on the new rear addition. Mr. Bearman said they would be ultra-high-performance concrete with an integrated texture; they are intended to echo elements on the 1908 facade that are in between the pilasters. He noted that the 1940s building is much less ornate than the 1908 building, and that the design is therefore trying to provide more visual interest without distracting too much from the overall harmony. Mr. Cook recommended that the general design of the infill panels used on the rear classroom addition also be used on the large openings within the gym addition, with the goal of bringing further consistency to the design while still using a modern palette. He said he finds that the design defers to the tradition of the original building and that the team had done a beautiful job.
Mr. McCrery agreed with Mr. Cook and expressed support for the design approach. He noted that the original building clearly states its civic importance and reflects a city that was committed to excellence in education, and he said the team has successfully extended this architectural language. He asked for more information on the proposed entry sequence; Mr. Bearman said a gate within a new perimeter fence would indicate where to enter, and the gate would generally be left open to welcome visitors.
Mr. McCrery observed that the new entrance would be set back a significant distance from the sidewalk, and he suggested creating a brick portal at the fence line, the character of which could borrow from both the old and new architectural language. He said that the portal could encompass the gate and have the name of the school on it, and he made reference to the entrance portal of Marcel Breuer’s Whitney Museum in New York City, which he described as brilliant.
Chairman Cook suggested a motion to approve the concept design, with the expectation that the applicant would return with a submission that incorporates the comments provided; upon second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission adopted this action.
3. CFA 19/FEB/26-7, Shirley Chisholm Elementary School, 1001 G Street, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposal for renovations and additions to Shirley Chisholm Elementary School in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. He said the historic 1949 school was designed by municipal architect Merrill Coe, with a one-story classroom bar added in 1967. The proposal retains the original 1949 building, replaces the 1967 classroom building with a three-story structure, and calls for two new rear additions for the gymnasium and cafeteria. The original main building would generally remain the same, with alterations to the windows and entrance. The new facades would be red brick with corbeling near the windows. The proposed landscape includes new accessible pathways, playgrounds, and a pollinator garden. He asked Maggie Grady, project manager at the D.C. Department of General Services, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Grady said the new school would be approximately 105,000 square feet, with a projected enrollment of 606 students. She asked architect Hiroshi Jacobs of Studios Architecture to present the design.
Mr. Jacobs said the school is located in southeast Capitol Hill, between Pennsylvania Avenue and I-695, approximately half a mile from both the Eastern Market and Potomac Avenue Metro stations. The large, full-block site is bounded by 10th, 11th, G, and I Streets, SE, and it is divided approximately in half, with the school buildings on the north and extensive playing fields on the south. The historic building’s ground floor level is approximately four feet above the surrounding grade, creating accessibility challenges that would be addressed by the design. He noted that this building is considered a noncontributing structure to the Capitol Hill Historic District but it would nevertheless be retained, as its Moderne character is noteworthy; he indicated its prominent chamfered corner at G and 10th Streets, along with its ribbon windows, prominent stair tower along 10th Street, and the existing gymnasium/cafeteria volume that would be converted to a library.
Mr. Jacobs said the proposal would modernize and enlarge the school by approximately twenty percent, improving outdoor programmable space used by the community after hours, ensuring security and safety, improving circulation of students and staff, and meeting D.C. sustainability requirements, which include achieving net zero status and meeting the LEED Gold standard. He said the proposed site organization maintains the primary entrance at G and 10th Streets, which is the more community-facing corner. The new additions would create a protected courtyard, with circular movement around the site allowing for efficient operation and school safety. Parking and loading would be along 11th Street, while the playground entrance and community-facing outdoor spaces would face 10th Street, the quieter residential street. The baseball field would be maintained.
Mr. Jacobs said the proposed massing concept would create a U-shaped school while both continuing the three-story datum of the existing building and mirroring the two-story double-height gymnasium/auditorium volume on the south. The three-story addition would contain academic spaces, while major public functions—including the gym, auditorium stage, dining, and library—would be located along the southern part of the site facing the significant outdoor space. A secondary entrance along 10th Street would allow after-hours community events and activities, responding to community interest in safe access without passing through administrative areas. Student dining, music classrooms, and the gymnasium anchor the southern portion of the building. Pre-K classrooms for the youngest children are located on the ground floor, with direct access to outdoor play space; upper levels feature double-loaded corridors with classrooms, with the oldest students on the top floor.
Mr. Jacobs said the proposed architectural approach considers both the surrounding neighborhood and the existing historic building. The long bar along 11th Street would use brick similar to the historic brick, while connector volumes between the historic building and the new addition would be more transparent and expressed with glass and metal. The 11th Street massing would be broken down to respond to the scale of the historic building and nearby rowhouses. The southern connector bar includes an expressive canopy marking the secondary entrance while contributing to sustainability goals by providing shade for the southern exposure and surface area for photovoltaic panels. He said the historic building would be restored, and the replacement windows would match the original ribbon windows; he also indicated the belt course on the 1949 building, and he said the new addition would continue this horizontal emphasis through brick articulation.
Mr. Jacobs presented views along 10th Street showing the secondary entrance, where the historic stair tower and gymnasium/auditorium would remain prominent, while the central rear addition would be set back and topped by a large canopy structure. He presented two color options for the metal canopy: a lighter color referencing the limestone and window elements of the historic building, and a darker red color emphasizing color and texture of the old and new brick. The canopy would extend over the new dining volume facing the play areas, providing shade and accommodating outdoor events while recalling the existing outdoor pavilion. Public art is proposed for a section of the southern facade of the new gymnasium volume. He presented views along 11th Street illustrating the addition’s articulated massing, which would create a rhythm along the long facade while referencing the historic building’s brick detailing. Special brick coursing at the first level would establish a rusticated base, while other brick courses would make reference to the historic ribbon window proportions. Additional public art is also proposed for the north elevation of the classroom bar. He asked landscape architect Danielle Alexander of Studio AKA to present the landscape design.
Ms. Alexander said the existing site features include an informal outdoor classroom with boulder seating and planting areas, an outdoor pavilion, an enclosed playground for early childhood students, and a larger play area along 11th Street between the building and the baseball field. Parking, loading, trash service, and overflow parking are currently accessed from 10th Street. She said the proposed site plan reorganizes circulation to improve safety and functionality while maintaining the existing main entry and introducing a new grade-level secondary entrance along 10th Street. The new courtyard configuration would provide a quieter and more protected outdoor classroom and teaching garden. Vehicular access would shift to 11th Street, allowing the primary playground to move to the more protected 10th Street side of the site. The early childhood playground remains centrally located for convenient access from the dining area, and additional open space behind the gymnasium would accommodate physical education activities. Stormwater management would be integrated through bioretention planters, and the baseball field would be renovated in place.
Ms. Alexander said the main entrance would be accessed from a new plaza that retains the half-circle geometry of the existing and that includes a gradually sloping accessible path and more seating. The two existing cherry trees that obstruct views of the historic facade would be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species set further to each side of the entrance. The courtyard landscape would balance planting and hardscape to support both garden and classroom uses. At the new entrance along 10th Street, a generous path from the sidewalk, lined with benches, would lead to a pollinator garden with child-scaled pathways incorporating boulders reclaimed from the site; this path would provide community access to the primary playground. At the rear of the dining volume, another half-circle platform would serve as an informal performance space facing the playground. Parking areas would accommodate loading and trash functions, which would be screened with masonry walls and located near back-of-house dining service areas. She said the design team has coordinated with the appropriate government agencies regarding tree removal, replacement, and preservation measures, particularly around the baseball field, where several mature trees are located. Materials including concrete, brick, and pavers would help define circulation and reinforce site organization.
Chairman Cook invited comments from the Commission members. Mr. McCrery complimented the proposal and expressed support for the landscape design, noting that he had coached Little League baseball on the field and that the community values the school as both an educational resource and amenity for sports leagues and activities. For the new additions along 11th Street, he recommended further study of the area where the three-story academic bar meets the double-height gymnasium. Finding that the three separate bays on the academic bar successfully break down the scale of the massing, he suggested creating an additional fourth bay, continuing the effective scale breakdown and thereby reducing the gymnasium’s large mass. He expressed appreciation for the facade recesses intended to accommodate public art, commenting that architecture should provide a framework for great art rather than giving artists carte blanche to rework entire facades. For the canopy, he expressed a preference for the lighter color option.
Mr. Cook asked about the rear wall of the new cafeteria, which features three windows and an expanse of blank wall; Mr. Jacobs said a storage room would be behind the blank area. Mr. Cook suggested inserting a recess, blind window, or actual window into the blank space to make the rear composition more elegant. He also suggested consideration of continuing the string course from the historic school onto the new additions. Finally, he inquired if the public art pieces had been commissioned, as the pieces would require artists able to work at a large scale. Mr. Jacobs responded that the art is commissioned through a separate process, but that the design team can provide guidance for the location and type of artwork; he said the design intent is for bas-relief sculpture or mosaics that would complement the building’s materiality and coloration. Mr. Cook offered to share the names of artists who work at the proposed scale.
Mr. McCrery suggested studying the incorporation of a non-continuous band similar in height and color to the historic building’s belt course, and he recommended Mr. Jacobs use his own design sensibility in developing the detail.
Chairman Cook said the proposal represents the kind of work the Commission is seeking, as it will provide young people an attractive place to learn while both complementing and improving the historic building; he suggested that with the few tweaks suggested by the Commission it would be really great project.
Ms. Patenaude offered a motion to approve the concept design with the comments provided; upon second by Ms. Harris, the Commission adopted this action.
4. CFA 19/FEB/26-8, Charles Hart Middle School, 601 Mississippi Avenue, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for renovations and additions to Charles Hart Middle School, located adjacent to Oxon Run in the Congress Heights neighborhood. He said the school is part of a cluster of public facilities in the area, including the Southeast Tennis and Learning Center, Oxon Run Park, Simon Elementary School, and Ballou High School. The existing three-story school opened in 1928 and was originally named after Job Barnard, a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, before being renamed after Charles Hart, a popular D.C. school principal who retired in 1945. The building has been expanded twice, with additions to the south and east dating from the 1950s and 1960s respectively, both of which would be demolished as part of this project. He said the proposal includes a large addition on the east side containing a new building entrance, gymnasium, auditorium, library, and cafeteria, reflecting current educational specifications that require much larger spaces. The new addition would create two primary entrances for the school, separating students by age to provide more orderly entry and to give the community after-hours access to the gymnasium and auditorium. The light-colored brick and prominent stair tower at the main entrance would be retained. He asked architect Alexander DeFee of Studios Architecture to present the design.
Mr. DeFee said the existing building sits within the 100- and 500-year flood plains, as well as the effective flood plain, which has resulted in frequent flooding of the school’s lower level; addressing the building’s safety and environmental resilience therefore became a primary project goal. He said the project team explored raising the lower level of the existing rear addition and installing underground drainage, but this would not be feasible because the rear addition is a slab-on-grade structure. In addition, the exposed-aggregate concrete facade of the 1960s academic wing is deteriorating. The proposal therefore calls for demolishing both additions and preserving the 1928 bar, which would house the main academic programs. A new addition would accommodate the enlarged auditorium, gymnasium, cafeteria, and other school programs.
Mr. DeFee indicated the existing building’s ribbon windows, strong horizontal datums, and crushed-marble-aggregate concrete accent details. The historic entrance features a prominent stair tower that has been compromised by a large accessibility ramp. The design proposes restoring the original entrance by removing the ramp, widening the stairs to their original proportions, deepening the landing for safety and comfort, and integrating accessible paths into the landscape. At the rear, the site slopes significantly, exposing all four stories of the building. He said the project goals include improving the school’s functionality, arrival experience, and security, noting that the school currently faces security problems with unsecured grounds and frequent incursions. The program includes an additional 8,000-square-foot partner space with separate dedicated access that would be available for future expansion if enrollment grows. He noted the current students would remain in the building during the four-year construction period, with work sequenced to allow uninterrupted use of the school.
Mr. DeFee said a new entrance with a security vestibule would provide access to spaces used by both the school and the community after hours. This arrangement would improve security by allowing the academic spaces to be closed off while keeping visitors on one level and providing access to the field. The gymnasium would serve the robust basketball program, with locker rooms directly south of the court. A two-story circulation space would lead down to the field and dining area below the black-box theater. A raked, two-story auditorium would be entered on the lower level by the public and from above by students from the academic program area. The second-floor programming would re-use the double-loaded corridor in the existing classroom bar while opening up views over the field to the park-like setting beyond. A connecting hyphen would overlook the gymnasium and the first floor of a two-story library. The performing arts rooms would be grouped, with a second entry to the auditorium serving as the primary entry for students from the academic area. The third floor would contain additional academic program areas, with the second story of the library overlooking a courtyard.
Mr. DeFee said the design approach for the new addition references the existing building’s Bauhaus-style ribbon windows and strong horizontality, but would complement rather than copy it, allowing the existing building to maintain its prominence on Mississippi Avenue, SE. He said the new exterior cladding being considered includes a buff-colored brick or limestone-like masonry, playing on the tonality and massing of the existing entry pavilion. Horizontal banding across the addition’s volumes would pick up on existing datum lines, while radius corners would refer to the existing canopy and soften the addition. He noted that the new colonnade proposed on the rear facade of the existing building, in the location of the 1950s addition, would use the design language from the addition to differentiate it from the existing building while providing a civic and monumental backdrop to the field, with views from the existing entry out to the field and park beyond, and built-in bleacher seating alongside steps down to the field. Integrated landscape and stormwater management would soften this edge. He asked landscape architect Danielle Alexander of Studio AKA to present the landscape design.
Ms. Alexander said the two existing curb-cuts off Mississippi Avenue would be maintained. One curb-cut would serve the staff parking lot, while the other would serve visitor parking and loading and trash areas, with stormwater management plantings screening views. Stormwater retention planters with lush plantings would hug the new classroom bar building at the rear. She indicated the new outdoor amphitheater seating looking out to the field, noting the at-grade entrance that would lead to the lowest level where an outdoor classroom and teaching garden would be co-located for easy access from the classrooms. The new playing field would be lined with tree plantings along the back promenade, and a terrace near the dining area would connect to a parkour area set among new trees outlining the shape of an airplane wing, making reference to the school’s “Jets” mascot. The new work would avoid disturbing existing large trees. At the front, accessible paths would navigate the six feet of grade change with sloping walkways of under five percent, providing multidirectional access while preserving the existing landforms.
Chairman Cook commended the design team for addressing the difficult site, including its flooding issues, and creating a thoughtful new arrangement of paths and outdoor spaces. He also expressed support for the modifications to the historic entrance and for the new colonnaded volume at the rear. He said that he did not initially like the new wing’s completely different color and style, which he thinks could still be refined, but that he began to appreciate the new design once he saw the rear colonnade. He suggested the team explore incorporating similar treatment to the front entrance area to better tie the composition together.
Mr. McCrery agreed, finding that the nobility of the new architecture increases the nobility of the existing architecture—a rare achievement that exemplifies the architect’s role to improve existing conditions. To further refine the design, he suggested treating the blank wall connecting the rear of the addition to the existing school as a “gasket,” similar to the glass connector seen connecting other sections of the new addition. At the street front, he questioned whether the tall brick volume next to the new addition was an existing condition, commenting that it sticks out like a sore thumb. Mr. DeFee confirmed this is an existing stair tower, and he said that the D.C. Historic Preservation Office (HPO) requested it be retained as a prominent part of the new composition, with the goal of allowing the original building massing to be read in its entirety. Ms. Carter suggested that artwork featuring the school’s mascot be incorporated into this area; Mr. DeFee agreed. Mr. Cook asked whether the team had considered reversing the stair tower massing on the left side of the new main entrance to tie the composition together, potentially incorporating significant artwork, and he referred to the artwork recently reviewed at the Chisholm School, which he called extraordinary. He also suggested using string courses to tie elements together.
Mr. McCrery questioned the use of solid steel doors at the historic entrance, requesting instead that glass doors be used while keeping the mullions from the historic design. Mr. DeFee said that the doorways would be widened to meet code, and that the school prefers solid doors for this entrance due to security concerns. Mr. McCrery responded that the solid doors were not welcoming and that they would make the building resemble something other than an educational facility. Mr. Cook suggested incorporating elements of the rear colonnade into this entrance area at a secondary scale, which would help tie the project together. Mr. DeFee noted HPO’s preference to keep the original entrance true to its original form, acknowledging the scale and threshold feeling is quite nice in person. He agreed that transparency allowing views through the doors to the rear could be impactful, creating a “piano nobile” effect of looking out and over.
Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission had raised issues regarding secondary design details, including the connecting gasket, additional articulation at the historic entrance, and potential artwork at the brick stair tower.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to approve the concept design with the comments provided, and with understanding that the design team would return to show further development of the design at the appropriate stage; upon a second by Ms. Carter, the Commission adopted this action.
E. D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities
CFA 19/FEB/26-9, Mamie Johnson Plaza, intersection of Florida Avenue, New York Avenue, and First Street, NE. New public artwork – Curve. Final. (Previous: CFA 22/JAN/26-6)
Secretary Luebke introduced the proposal, submitted on behalf of the North of Massachusetts Avenue Business Improvement District (NoMa BID), for a final design for a sculpture honoring Mamie “Peanut” Johnson to be sited within a new plaza at the intersection of 1st Street, Florida Avenue, and New York Avenue, NE. The artwork—Curve, by local artist Rania Hassan—consists of a sculptural loop inspired both by the stitching on baseballs and the caduceus, the symbol of medicine, given Johnson’s work in both fields. The sculpture would be anchored to a four-foot-high pedestal and would stand a total of twelve feet high; it would be made of half-inch-thick carbon steel and finished with bright red paint.
Mr. Luebke said the Commission had reviewed this project at last month’s meeting and had expressed strong support for the design but did not take an action, recommending additional articulation of the metal bands that characterize the sculpture as well as further analysis of the structural stability of the proposal. The current submission includes enlarged details documenting the flanges added to the inner plane to ensure structural stiffness, the articulation that expresses the intersection of overlapping planes, and additional views of the sculpture from various vantage points. He asked Karyn Miller, public art manager at the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities (DCCAH), to begin the presentation.
Ms. Miller said the proposal was developed in partnership with the NoMA BID, which was awarded a DCCAH Public Art Building Communities grant. She said this program supports individual artists and organizations in their efforts to create new temporary and permanent public artworks; completion of this project is planned for fall of this year. She noted that Ms. Hassan, the piece’s artist, would present her work as requested by the Commission, and she asked Brian Smith, vice president of planning and economic development at the NoMa BID, to introduce the design.
Mr. Smith said the artwork would be located at an important gateway to the city that serves as a hub for residents, office workers, students, and visitors. He noted the Commission’s previous comments requesting further articulation of the metal bands and further analysis of the spherical geometric composition as one walks around the piece. He asked Ms. Hassan to present the artwork.
Ms. Hassan indicated the orientation of the piece in relation to the intersection, noting the twenty-foot-diameter circular planter is set back from the street. The sculpture’s concrete base would be set back seven feet from the edge of the landscape circle, creating a natural buffer and barrier between the viewer and the piece. In response to a question raised at the last meeting, she confirmed that traffic is not permitted to turn right on a red signal, ensuring a safe environment for both cars and pedestrians around the artwork. She reiterated the design’s intention to represent Ms. Johnson’s careers in baseball and nursing using the single bold form of a continuous line forming an infinite loop. Ms. Hassan noted how the geometric path of a baseball’s threads mirrors the sinews of the caduceus symbol; therefore, in the design of Curve, the painted lines trace the specific path of baseball stitching and echo the intertwined forms of the caduceus to represent sculpturally the unity of Johnson’s two vocations. She said the sculpture is designed from one continuous flat form twisted into its final shape, creating distinct outer and inner planes. As a viewer moves around the artwork, the outer plane remains closest to the eye while the inner plane recedes into the background, creating an added sense of depth. The dynamic curves offer a unique perspective from every angle while capturing the roundness and trajectory of a moving ball.
Ms. Hassan said the sculpture would be finished in high-performance red paint and accented with custom line work in a second, lighter shade to highlight the stitch pattern design. She acknowledged the previous concerns about structural rigidity and assured the Commission that engineers are working closely with the fabrication studio to ensure exceptional strength. The sculpture would be anchored to the base at two distinct points, with two-inch sealed plates providing secure attachment points. The plates would have threaded stainless-steel rods embedded into the concrete base for maximum stability. To address the Commission’s earlier comments regarding structural articulation, she presented a detail showing the quarter-inch-thick sidewalls, which would provide both necessary structural stability and aesthetic depth to the form. On the outer plane, the dual tone finish would ensure the stitch pattern remains legible even from a distance.
Ms. Hassan presented four views of the sculpture, moving counterclockwise around the piece. She said the first view from the plaza, at 1st Street looking north, clearly shows how the metal forms a continuous line to make the curve. The northwest view shows the overlapping arches mimicking details of a knitting stitch at a large scale, which she noted represents a single stitch coming together to form a larger story. She said the southwest view highlights the interplay between the two arcing forms, and the southeast view, looking down Florida Avenue, shows how the inner plane texture would always be a background layer to the piece, with the painted lines closest to the viewer. She said the views illustrate how the piece’s geometry would shift as one moves around it. She concluded that she is working with a lighting designer to ensure the sculpture is experienced safely and beautifully at all hours.
Chairman Cook said he believes the project is ready for final approval; Secretary Luebke confirmed the Commission could approve the project, noting that while the Commission had previously taken no action and had given specific guidance, the applicant chose to return at the final rather than concept stage.
Mr. Taylor said that he liked the project the first time the Commission reviewed it, and that he appreciates how it is deconstructive without being destructive. He said he finds the piece to be beautiful and likes the interaction between the positive and negative space, as well as the integration of movement around the piece. He noted that many baseballs are still hand-sewn, which adds another layer to the work’s concept and narrative. He expressed enthusiasm for the piece’s concept, materiality, and engineering, and said he looks forward to seeing it in person.
Ms. Carter echoed Mr. Taylor’s comments, reiterating that she loves the piece and finds that all issues have been addressed. She also expressed appreciation that the piece is being created by a local artist for a local person who might not be well known in the community, and she congratulated Ms. Hassan, calling it an outstanding piece. Mr. McCrery agreed with the comments.
Upon a motion by Ms. Carter to approve the final design with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission adopted this action. Mr. McCrery congratulated Ms. Hassan and expressed gratitude to Mr. Smith and Ms. Miller for arranging for the Commission to meet the artist, noting it is very important that artists are able to present their own work and directly respond to questions.
[At this point, Ms. Carter departed the meeting for the day.]
F. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 19/FEB/26-10, Congressional Gold Medal – Billie Jean King. Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke said that the U.S. Congress has authorized a Congressional Gold Medal honoring the renowned tennis player and activist Billie Jean King, in recognition of a remarkable life championing equal rights for all in sports and society. He said that only a single obverse and reverse alternative were submitted: the obverse shows Ms. King in a moment of focused, dynamic action, as she prepares to hit an approach shot, while the reverse features a laurel wreath framing the text from the medal’s authorizing legislation and Ms. King’s signature. He noted that the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, the subject matter expert group that reviews such designs, had not yet reviewed the proposal, so its recommendations are not available. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the office of design management at the U.S. Mint, to present the alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan said that the Mint worked directly with Ms. King on these designs, and that the proposed alternatives are her preferred options; this is the reason the Mint decided to submit only one option for each side. She noted that the signature on the reverse is purposefully slanted, as this is how Ms. King signs her name.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to recommend the single obverse and reverse alternatives; upon second by Mr. Cook, the Commission adopted this action.
2. CFA 19/FEB/26-11, 2027 Working Dog Commemorative Coin Program. Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced candidate designs for a commemorative coin program recognizing the invaluable service that working dogs provide to society. Artists were asked to develop designs based on different themes for each coin type: therapy dogs for the five-dollar gold coin, service and guide dogs for the one-dollar silver coin, and military and police K-9 dogs for the half-dollar clad coin. For all coin designs, the obverses generally depict an image or side profile of one or several dogs, while the reverses generally show them in their service role. He said this is not consistent across the portfolio, and certain combinations could result in a double-headed or two-tailed coin, and he noted that the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee had not yet reviewed these designs. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the office of design management at the U.S. Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan said the gold coin measures 0.85 inches in diameter, slightly larger than a nickel. The silver dollar is the largest coin at 1.5 inches, and the clad coin measures 1.2 inches, which is half-dollar size. She said that as this is a commemorative program, surcharges would be placed on the coins, with proceeds paid to the organization America’s Vet Dogs; this organization served as the experts and liaison group for this program, and its design preferences would be highlighted throughout the presentation.
Five-Dollar Gold Coin (Therapy Dogs)
Ms. Sullivan presented the gold obverse and reverse designs, noting the liaison’s preference for obverse #6 and reverse #4A.
Mr. Taylor said he finds obverses #1 and #2 to be the strongest, noting that the texture of these designs would look quite nice on a highly reflective gold surface and at the scale of the five-dollar piece; he expressed his overall preference for obverse #2, noting its cleaner composition and more legible text.
Ms. Carter expressed a preference for obverse #6, noting that she likes the imagery of the hand and dog, which she said would represent partnering and healing. She said that she appreciates the symmetry of the hand with the logo of a hand under a paw on the harness, but that she finds the keys in the dog’s mouth to be unnecessary and distracting. Ms. Patenaude asked about the symbolism of the keys; Ms. Sullivan said that the design features a dutiful therapy dog holding a set of keys as its handler approaches with an outstretched hand, symbolizing one of the tasks that the dog can perform, such as retrieving keys.
Mr. McCrery observed that the liaison’s preferences for obverse and reverse depict similar themes, with both showing a dog wearing a harness with a logo and helping someone, and said he finds this unnecessarily repetitive. Instead, he suggested featuring a single dog on the obverse, with that dog or several dogs assisting a person on the reverse. He expressed support for obverse #6 without the keys, and he said he could also support either obverse #1 or #2. He also commented that the logo on the harness seems like it is promoting a cause rather than advancing one, which he finds somewhat inappropriate for coinage.
Ms. Carter suggested using obverse #2 on the obverse and obverse alternative #6 on the reverse. Mr. Taylor agreed, noting that if a more complex scene were shown on the reverse, a simpler obverse would offer a straightforward introduction to the overall narrative. He also expressed appreciation for the border in obverse alternative #6, which would provide a place to put the required text.
Mr. Cook observed that with this combination there would be two different fonts, and he recommended that they match. Mr. McCrery agreed, commenting that the font used on obverse #2 looks overly commercial and cartoonish. Ms. Carter also noted that the dogs did not match between the obverse and reverse, and asked if this would be acceptable. Mr. Taylor suggested that as multiple dogs can perform this type of work, the dogs do not need to match; Mr. Cook agreed.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to recommend obverse alternative #2 for the obverse and obverse alternative #6 for the reverse, with the suggestions to remove the keys from the reverse and coordinate the inscriptions and fonts; upon second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission adopted this action.
One-Dollar Silver Coin (Service and Guide Dogs)
Ms. Sullivan presented the obverse and reverse alternatives, noting the liaison’s preferences for obverse #1 and reverse #1, with reverse #2 as a secondary preference.
Ms. Patenaude expressed confusion about the designs’ use of the terms “service dog” to “vet dog,” noting that the service dog term is a somewhat controversial category in the housing industry, and she asked if the two are being used interchangeably. Ms. Sullivan explained that one alternative shows a service dog providing service to a veteran, and in that case, the terms are considered interchangeable. Ms. Patenaude indicated her preference for the use of the vet dog designation due to the continuing controversy around service dogs. Mr. McCrery asked if “service” could be replaced with “vet”; Ms. Patenaude agreed that this would be fine, noting she is more focused on the terminology.
Mr. McCrery suggested that obverse #1 from the gold coin portfolio would work well for the silver obverse, as he agrees that this design would appear better in silver. He therefore suggested using obverse alternative #1 from the gold coin candidate designs for the obverse for the silver coin, and then using the preferred silver reverse #1 with the substitution of “vet” for “service.”
Ms. Carter said that she finds the preferred obverse and the reverse to be too much alike, and recommended that they select an alternative with a single dog for the obverse; McCrery agreed.
Mr. Taylor agreed that obverse alternative #1 from the gold coin would work better at the scale of the one-dollar silver coin, as the physical coin is larger, and he therefore expressed support for Mr. McCrery’s suggestions.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to recommended obverse alternative #1 from the gold coin candidates for the silver obverse and reverse #1, with the suggestion to replace the word “service” with “vet” on the dog’s vest; upon second by Ms. Carter, the Commission adopted this action.
Half-Dollar Clad Coin (Military and Police K-9 Dogs)
Ms. Sullivan presented the clad coin designs, noting the liaison’s preferences for obverse #5 and reverse #5. Mr. Luebke asked if there was a previously presented design featuring a German shepherd without all the paraphernalia seen in the preferred obverse. Mr. McCrery recalled that there was one design depicting a dog lying down with the word “service” below, commenting that it was well rendered and a nice work of art. Mr. Taylor identified it as being from the silver coin portfolio, and Ms. Sullivan confirmed it was silver obverse #4.
Mr. McCrery said he finds the quality of the art in this group to be mediocre, except for reverse #3, which he finds rather nice. Mr. Taylor agreed, noting the obverse alternatives include dogs wearing goggles without context, making it difficult to understand what is being depicted. Ms. Harris agreed, noting that she sees police dogs every day at her job, and that they do not typically wear goggles or other gear when sniffing and sweeping vehicles.
Ms. Carter expressed a preference for obverse #7 and reverses #2 and #5.
[At this point, Ms. Carter departed the meeting for the day.]
Ms. Patenaude noted the lack of consensus and requested Mr. Taylor’s thoughts on the artwork. Mr. Taylor commented favorably on the artistic quality of silver obverse alternative #4, suggesting it be used for the clad obverse; this obverse would show the German shepherd without gear, and then the reverse could show it performing its job. He summarized that this pairing would create a more coherent narrative for the overall coin theme.
Ms. Patenaude agreed, noting that that the American flag appears in several of the compositions but is somewhat small, and that it is not clear if it would be legible on a small coin. Mr. Taylor noted that the fifty-cent piece could probably accommodate a small flag on the reverse, and that there are some flag images that could be modified to give some context. Ms. Patenaude agreed there were several reverse alternatives with flags, such as the flag on the dog’s vest in reverse #3, but she said she finds the bank of chairs in the background of the image to be distracting; Mr. Taylor and Mr. Cook agreed. Ms. Patenaude questioned the text “do not pet” on the dog’s vest; Mr. Taylor suggested removing the text and increasing the size of the flag.
Ms. Patenaude offered a motion to recommended obverse alternative #4 from the silver coin candidate designs for the clad obverse, with text coordinated for the clad coin theme, and to recommend clad alternative #3 for the reverse, with the recommendations to remove the chair bank in the background and the “do not pet” text and to increase the size of the American flag on the dog’s vest; upon second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission adopted this action.
3. CFA 19/FEB/26-12, 2027 Paralympic Sports Half Dollar – Wheelchair Basketball. Designs for reverse. Final. (Previous: CFA 22/JAN/26-11)
Secretary Luebke introduced the candidate designs for the 2027 reverse of a circulating half-dollar coin that would depict sports tailored to athletes with a range of physical, visual, and intellectual impairments; these are referred to in the coin’s authorizing legislation as Paralympic sports. For the 2027 coin, wheelchair basketball will be featured, with the proposed design alternatives generally depicting players engaging in the action of the sport. He noted that the Commission reviewed in January the common obverse design, which would feature a portrait of President John F. Kennedy; the reverses in future years will depict additional sports.
Ms. Patenaude asked if 2027 is an Olympic year; Ms. Sullivan responded that 2027 is not an Olympic year and said that the legislation authorized a four-year program, from 2027 through 2030, featuring four different Paralympic sports on half dollars. These would accompany the quarter designs, which would feature youth sports on the reverses and President George Washington as a common obverse design. She then presented the portfolio, noting that there was no liaison group but that experts had reviewed the designs.
Mr. Taylor expressed concern that some designs with the overlapping figures of players would be difficult to render at the size of a coin. He cited reverse #7 as a good example of clear action that would be legible at the coin’s size, whereas other designs with overlapping players could be confusing. Ms. Patenaude asked about reverse #6, and Mr. Taylor agreed that it would be legible, although Ms. Patenaude noted the basketball in the background was not clear to her.
Ms. Patenaude said that reverse #7 seems to have more elements than when she first glanced at it, and she wondered if the double-sided depiction of the chair’s wheels contributed to this effect; Mr. Taylor noted that he likes how the basketball forms the letter “O” in the inscription. He observed that there were several clever details throughout the coins, such as the placement of “2027,” but he noted that the date is set close to the number on the player’s jersey and is somewhat disorienting. Mr. McCrery said he likes the formality and symmetry down the middle of #7, which he said creates a nice interplay between the two sides as the Kennedy obverse is not straight-on. Mr. Cook asked if others would support removing the numbers from the jerseys, which he finds visually cluttered; Mr. Taylor suggested either removing the numbers or moving the date, and Mr. McCrery agreed with moving the date. Mr. Taylor noted that the only element that appears awkward is the “Wheelchair Basketball” inscription, suggesting that there might be another way to handle it. He emphasized that the design is very clear, has nice symmetry, is easily readable at scale, and the basketball being used as the letter “O” is clever. He said this clarity is particularly appropriate since it would be the reverse of the Kennedy portrait, which is more traditional.
Mr. McCrery asked whether “Wheelchair Basketball” needed to be included on the coin, questioning if the imagery was not sufficiently clear, and suggested placing “Liberty” and the date in that space instead. Ms. Sullivan confirmed that this inscription is not legislatively required. Mr. McCrery asked if the word Paralympic appears on any of the designs. Ms. Sullivan said that while these are Paralympic sports, they do not need to have been played at the Paralympic Games specifically. The term refers to para-sports generally, though the legislation calls them Paralympic sports. She noted they had worked directly with the U.S. Paralympics organization to ensure the designs were correct.
Mr. Taylor said that if the inscription were kept on reverse #7, he would recommend removing the partial border for the inscription and making the wheelchair basketball text uniform with the other text around the edge of the coin. The entire inscription would read “United States of America Wheelchair Basketball” in the same font, with the image slightly adjusted so the wheelchairs would not overlap the text. Alternatively, he suggested creating a full circular border that would separate the text from the center of the coin, with the “Wheelchair” on the interior but with the players’ arms extending outside the border. He said that the border would continue completely around, with the wheelchairs positioned as shown, but when elements like the basketball crossed over, they would extend outside the circle, and this composition would unify the design elements.
Ms. Patenaude questioned whether the words “Wheelchair Basketball” were necessary on reverse #7, as the illustration clearly depicted the sport; Ms. Sullivan confirmed they were not required. Mr. Taylor suggested using the inscription “Paralympics” to celebrate all Paralympics, with this particular sport shown as a representative example, allowing the coin to honor everyone who participated in these sports while featuring one specific sport.
Mr. Cook asked what word would be best at the bottom of #7. Ms. Patenaude noted that the legislation referred to it as “Paralympic,” but expressed uncertainty, observing that the design was very busy, especially with the dark font shown. Mr. Cook noted that the font would match the one above. Ms. Sullivan explained that when text is shown outlined in the design renderings, it indicates that the inscription would be raised off the surface of the coin, while solid black text indicates an incused or recessed inscription. In the current design, the border would be raised with the text pressed into the surface. Ms. Patenaude asked for clarification about whether “United States of America” is typically raised on coins; Ms. Sullivan said that it varies by coin and that the outlined or dark text convention was used by their artists to guide the sculpting process. Ms. Patenaude observed that in reverse #7, the top text is raised and the bottom text is incused, which Ms. Sullivan confirmed.
Mr. Taylor said that the partial border for the inscription is causing the majority of the issues in the design; Mr. McCrery agreed. Mr. Taylor suggested it could either go all the way around or be eliminated. Mr. Cook suggested it could go all the way around except for at the basketball; Mr. Taylor agreed, noting it is a nice detail.
Mr. Cook observed that the word “Liberty” is appropriate for this coin, noting he has friends in this situation who can maneuver and play sports, allowing them to experience a sense of liberation. He asked the Commission members if they would support using that word with the date at the bottom. Ms. Patenaude expressed support for the idea but noted that if they were to include the text “Paralympic,” the Paralympics would occur at the 2028 Olympics, while the coin would be dated 2027. Ms. Sullivan noted that “Liberty” would appear on the obverse of the coin; she also confirmed that “In God We Trust” and “E Pluribus Unum” would be on the obverse, while “United States of America” would be on the reverse. She said this is a standard convention for Mint coins, though it is not universal.
Mr. Taylor said that when seen with the recommended obverse design, the text “Wheelchair Basketball” seems even more out of place. Ms. Patenaude confirmed they were discussing the words, not the imagery, and she asked whether anything was necessary in that space, noting that the obverse indicates it is a half dollar. Mr. Cook agreed it was not really necessary.
Mr. McCrery suggested the jersey numbers could be retained and “2027” could be placed approximately where the word “wheelchair” is, leaving everything else alone. He also suggested having the artist complete the wheelchair wheels so they are not clipped by the border graphic. Mr. Taylor agreed with this approach, noting it would allow focus on the action. He said that the Kennedy obverse is very contemplative, still, and thoughtful, while the reverse depicts action, and removing the text would create a more intimate kind of action when flipping the coin. Mr. McCrery agreed.
Chairman Cook suggested that a consensus had been reached and requested a motion. Mr. Taylor offered a motion to recommend reverse #7, with the requests to remove the border graphic and the text “Wheelchair Basketball” to avoid overlapping the images, relocating the date “2027” to the lower left edge of the coin, and completing the depiction of the wheels; upon second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission adopted this action.
4. CFA 19/FEB/26-13, 2027 Youth American Sports Quarter – Baseball, Golf, Soccer, Softball, and Snowboarding. Designs for reverse. Final. (Previous: CFA 22/JAN/26-12)
Secretary Luebke introduced the candidate reverse designs for the 2027–2030 Youth American Sports Quarters, which will feature sports played by American youth. The program seeks to promote youth participation in sports and celebrate the positive impact of sports on the growth and development of young Americans. The proposed designs generally show one or several youths engaged in the subject sport, with either realistic or abstract background designs. A common obverse featuring President George Washington, which the Commission had reviewed the previous month, would be used for each coin in the series. He noted that the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee had not yet reviewed the designs, and he asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the office of design management at the U.S. Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan said that five quarters would be issued in each year from 2027 to 2030, with 2027 featuring baseball, golf, soccer, softball, and snowboarding. She noted that artists were required to depict a young person or people to keep the focus on this group and their relationship to the subject sport.
Baseball
Ms. Sullivan presented the baseball portfolio, noting that because baseball is traditionally a sport played by boys, these designs depict male players, while the softball designs would depict girls. She said that the designs had been reviewed by experts, but that there were no specific preferences.
Mr. Taylor said he finds reverse #1 to be the best, noting that it has a Norman Rockwell-like quality; he said he also likes the asymmetrical background. Mr. McCrery commented that the figure was well done, noting the skinny arms and legs are appropriate for a child. He recommended that the catcher’s mask be pulled down to its correct position covering the catcher’s chin.
Chairman Cook summarized the consensus to recommended reverse #1.
Golf
Ms. Sullivan presented the golf portfolio, noting that reverse #1 features an adult, with the artist intending to show a father caddying for his daughter.
Mr. McCrery expressed a preference for reverse #7, noting the appropriateness of the club being almost as tall as the player. However, he wished the figure depicted a girl rather than a boy. He commented favorably that the disc in which the figure was composed represents the dimpled surface of a golf ball, and he noted the quality of the small patch of grass on which the figure is standing.
Ms. Patenaude expressed a preference for reverse #4, which depicts three children golfing, with a girl in the middle, and she noted how the flag formed the “l” in the “Golf” inscription; Mr. Taylor agreed, calling it fun and very clever. Mr. McCrery added that the ball formed the letter “o.” Mr. McCrery suggested that the dimpled golf ball concept from reverse #7 be brought into reverse #4.
Mr. Cook suggested that reverse #4 might be improved by removing the boy on the far right, as the composition feels crowded. Mr. Taylor suggested keeping all three figures but making the letters “G” and “f” smaller, sliding the figures over slightly to create more space, and reducing or adjusting the date placement to ensure less overlap of the elements. He said that the design feels crowded with too many overlapping elements; Mr. Cook and Ms. Patenaude agreed. Mr. Cook also noted his appreciation for the flag, citing its similarity to the logo of the Masters Tournament at Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia.
Mr. Taylor offered a motion to recommended reverse #4, with the suggestion to reduce the size of the letters “G” and “f” and the date “2027,” which should be moved away from the figures and the text; upon a second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission adopted this action.
Soccer
Ms. Sullivan then presented the soccer portfolio. Mr. Taylor expressed strong support for reverse #1, citing its unique image and narrative; Mr. Cook agreed.
Ms. Patenaude expressed preferences for reverse #1 and #8, noting that both were very clean; Ms. Harris agreed that #8 had stood out to her initially. Ms. Patenaude observed that the inscription “United States of America” appears upside down under on #8; Mr. Taylor suggested rotating the text and lowering the figure, and others noted that reverse #1 has the text right-side up on the bottom.
Chairman Cook asked Mr. Taylor to elaborate on his suggestions for reverse #8. Mr. Taylor suggested rotating the text and shifting the figure down so she would be centered, noting that the figure was currently too close to the edge of the coin and needed more headroom. He emphasized that since there was nothing else to ground the design, more focus on the center would be important. Ms. Patenaude sought clarification about whether the figure in reverse #8 was male or female, as she thought it was male while Mr. Taylor had referred to “her.” Ms. Harris observed that the figure appears more as a female adult than a child, and she suggested that the child depicted in reverse #1 would be more appropriate; Ms. Patenaude agreed. Mr. McCrery noted the excitement and raw emotion visible in the girl’s face, expression, and body language in #1.
Chairman Cook asked Mr. Taylor if he finds the large ball in reverse #1 to be appropriate relative to the size of the inscriptions. Mr. Taylor responded that he would probably reduce the size of “Soccer” by roughly fifteen percent to maintain its legibility at the size of a quarter while avoiding crowding, but emphasized that the contrast between the ball and the girl was very effective, noting that the viewer could understand the narrative of watching where the ball went. He also suggested adding more space between the letters for better legibility, and he described it as a smart design.
Ms. Patenaude suggested adding a number to the girl’s jersey to make it was clear she is participating in a team sport; Mr. Taylor agreed. Ms. Patenaude asked for President Trump’s favorite number to be used on the jersey, and Mr. McCrery requested Ms. Harris’s input. Ms. Harris responded that the president would probably say 45 or 47; Ms. Patenaude suggested putting “47” on the girl’s jersey. Chairman Cook agreed, and Mr. McCrery also expressed enthusiasm for this idea.
Mr. Taylor offered a motion to recommend reverse #1, with the suggestions to reduce the size of the “Soccer” inscriptions by fifteen percent, to add spacing between the letters, and to add the number 47 to the girl’s jersey; upon second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission adopted this action.
Softball
Ms. Sullivan presented the softball portfolio, reiterating that because softball is more traditionally played by girls, these designs depicted girls, whereas the baseball designs depicted boys.
Ms. Patenaude said that she did not like reverse #1, observing that the softball player appeared to have three arms and did not look like she was in motion.
Ms. Harris expressed preferences for reverses #4 and 4A, noting their consistency with the design chosen for the baseball coin; Mr. Taylor agreed. Mr. McCrery said that #4A was preferable to #4 because in that option, the catcher appears behind the batter, and the batter is on the wrong side of home plate. However, he questioned whether the date 2027 was needed on the base in #4A.
Mr. Taylor suggested that reverse #4 is more consistent with other coins, and he proposed that the plate be removed from the composition. He noted that it was nice to have the background action behind the border, with elements that clearly indicate softball rather than baseball. Mr. McCrery agreed that the border was better in reverse #4, but he again cited the odd positioning of the batter in relation to the home plate. Mr. Taylor suggested simply removing the plate; Mr. Cook agreed.
Mr. Taylor offered a motion to recommend reverse #4, with suggestion to remove the home plate from the composition; upon second by Ms. Harris, the Commission adopted this action.
Snowboarding
Ms. Sullivan presented the snowboarding portfolio; Secretary Luebke requested the composite view for reference.
Ms. Patenaude said she prefers reverse #3, noting that while she is a skier rather than a snowboarder, this design immediately appealed to her; Mr. Taylor supported this choice. Ms. Harris said that she also is a skier, but she agrees that #3 is the one she had noted when first reviewing the portfolio. Mr. McCrery also commented favorably on reverse #3, and Mr. Taylor expressed appreciation for the mountains and trees, noting that the design reminds him of classic coins.
Upon a motion by Ms. Harris and second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission voted to recommend reverse #3.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary