[The Commission of Fine Arts Seventeenth Report, 1 July 1954 to 30 June 1958]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

I JULY I954 TO 30 JUNE 1958
The
Commission of Fine Arts
Seventeenth Report
PASADENA PUBLIC LIBRARY
reference
.UIL 211964
Lincoln Memorial Area, view from the east.
REPORT OF THE
Commission of Fine Arts
1 July 1954 to 30 June 1958
KO2
Jl9IO
Seal of the Commission of Fine Arts.
THE COMM
FINE
UNITED STATES ESTABLISH
CONG
MAY 17
ISSION OF ARTS
OF AMERICA ED BY THE RESS
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1964
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $1.00
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
30 June 1963.
Dear Mr. President:
I transmit herewith for your information the report of the activities of the Commission of Fine Arts during the period 1 July 1954 to 30 June 1958.
Respectfully submitted.
David E. Finley, Cliairm an (1950—1963).
The President, The 'White House.
CONTENTS
Chapter	Page
I	Report of the Commission of Fine Arts.................. 1
II	Public Buildings........................................ 9
III	Statues, Monuments, and Memorials...................... 25
IV	Paintings and the Graphic Arts......................... 41
V	Coins, Medals, and Insignia............................ 45
VI	District of Columbia Government and Redevelopment Land Agency................................................ 51
VII	The Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge................. 61
VIII	Landscape Architecture, Parks, Parkways, and Playgrounds .................................................... 73
IX	Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions......................... 79
X	Old Georgetown Act Submissions......................... 85
XI	Administration, Budget, etc............................ 91
Index................................................. 97
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Lincoln Memorial Area, view from the east.........Frontispiece
Seal of the Commission of Fine Arts....................... Ill
Members of the Commission of Fine Arts...................... X
Lincoln Memorial Area, view from the east obstructed by temporary buildings....................................... 10
Museum of History and Technology, Constitution Avenue, between 12th and 14th Streets NW.......................... 16
Central Intelligence Building, Langley, Va................. 21
Physical Education Building, Gallaudet College............. 22
Hearing and Speech Center, Gallaudet College............... 23
West Coast Memorial, San Francisco, Calif.................. 25
East Coast Memorial, Battery Park, New York City ....	26
Sculptural Feature of East Coast Memorial, Battery Park,
New York City............................................ 27
American Military Cemetery, Hamm, Luxembourg............... 28
Chapel in American Military Cemetery, Hamm, Luxembourg .	29
American Military Cemetery, Honolulu, Hawaii............... 30
Columbia, sculptural feature on Chapel in American Military
Cemetery, Honolulu, Hawaii............................... 31
Marine Corps Memorial (Iwo Jima), Arlington, Va............ 34
Statue of Simon Bolivar, a gift from the Government of
Venezuela, to the Government of the United States ....	39
Department of Defense Medals.............................48,	49
LaSalle Elementary School, Riggs Road and 6th Street NE .	51
Engine Company No. 23 and Rescue Squad No. 3, 24th and
Irving Streets SE........................................ 52
The Great Plaza in the Federal Triangle facing 14th Street
NW................................... . . ............... 74
The Great Plaza—Outdoor Garage............................. 75
Park Road Bridge over Piney Branch Parkway in Rock Creek
Park..................................................... 76
Spout Run Bridge, George Washington Memorial Parkway, above Key Bridge.......................................... 77
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Headquarters Building, Maryland Avenue and 2d Street NE................................... 82
Addition to Chamber of Commerce Building, 1615 H Street
NW....................................................... 83
Canal, Old Georgetown...................................... 86
1058-1070 30th Street NW. (front view after remodelling) . .	88
1058-1070 30th Street NW, (rear view after remodelling) . .	89
602-604—64----2
Members of the Commission of Fine Arts: Left to right—Wallace K. Harrison, Architect; William G. Perry, Architect; Elbert Peets, Landscape Architect and City Planner; David E. Finley, former Director of the National Gallery of Art; Felix de Weldon, Sculptor; Douglas W. Orr, Architect; Emily Muir, Artist.
CHAPTER
O N E ☆
Report of the Commission of Fine Arts
THE Commission of Fine Arts respectfully submits the 17th report, covering activities during the period from 1 July 1954 tlirouh 30 June 1958.
The Commission, established by act of Congress approved 17 May 1910, whose members are appointed by the President for terms of 4 years each and serve until their successors are appointed and qualified, consisted of:
David E. Finley, former Director of the National Gallery of Art, of Washington, D.C., Chairman;
Pietro Belluschi, architect, of Oregon, succeeded by
Douglas W. Orr, architect, of Connecticut, Vice Chairman;
Joseph Hudnut, architect, of Massachusetts, succeeded by
William G. Perry, architect, of Massachusetts ;
Edward F. Neild, Sr., architect of Louisiana, succeeded by
'Wallace K. Harrison, architect of New York;
Elbert Peets, landscape architect and city planner, of Washington, D.C., succeeded by
Michael Rapuano, landscape architect, of New’ York;
George Biddle, painter, of New’ York, succeeded by
Emily L. Muir, painter, of Maine;
Felix W. de Weldon, sculptor, Washington, D.C.
This small group-—nationally known in each profession—meets in Washington for 1 or 2 days each month, except July and August, for the purpose of advising the President, Congress, and the heads of departments of the Government on matters of art that specifically concern the Federal Government. The Commission is the only permanent agency of the Government authorized by Congress to advise
on esthetic matters that would affect the public structures, parks, and monuments of Washington.
At the first meeting held during the period of this report on 16 September 1954, the Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts, Mr. Linton R. Wilson, reported on the ceremonies of 2 August 1954 honoring the 200th anniversary of the birth of Major Pierre Charles L’Enfant, whose plan for the Federal City, as prepared in 1791 at the request of President Washington and as revised and extended by the Senate Park Commission in 1901 under the leadership of Senator James McMillan of Michigan, has guided the progressive development of Washington as the well-ordered, unified, and beautiful capital of a great Nation.
The four members who were appointed February 1955 to the Commission—Mrs. Muir, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Orr— attended their first meeting on 15 March 1955. At this meeting, Mr. David E. Finley was reelected Chairman, and Mr. Orr, elected Vice-Chairman.
The members of the Commission, at the invitation of the National Capital Planning Commission, agreed during the meeting on 14 March 1957 that the Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts would serve as its representative on the National Capital Planning Commission Coordinating Committee. This action was taken in order to produce a closer working procedure in the solution of projects of mutual interest.
Mr. Rapuano attended his first meeting on 26 June 1958, having been appointed to fill the vacancy created by Mr. Elbert Peets’ resignation.
The members of the Commission of Fine Arts, speaking of the death of Frederick Law Olmsted—the first landscape architect mem
page 1
ber of the Commission—composed and adopted the following resolution on 17 March 1958:
Resolution adopted by the Commission of Fine Arts, 27 Marell 1958, on the death of Frederick Law Olmsted.
The Commission of Fine Arts has learned with sorrow of the death of Frederick Law Olmsted on 26 December 1957. He was active in the esthetic development of the city of Washington which began in 1900. He was a founding member of the Commission of Fine Arts, serving from 15 June 1910 to 11 September 1918. With Daniel H. Burnham, Cass Gilbert, Daniel Chester French, Charles A. Platt, and John Russell Pope, he guided the early development of the Mall and of the park system for the Capital. He was one of those who first advocated the establishment of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and served as a member of that Commission from 1926 to 1932.
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, Frederick Law Olmsted was foremost in the sphere of city planning, civic art, and landscape architecture, as his father had been in the latter half of the 19th century. Fredick Law Olmsted was a man of extraordinary activity and accomplishment. His death is a great loss but his spirit lives on in his works. He will always be remembered by members of the Commission of Fine Arts as a leader in the field of public service to which the Commission is dedicated.
Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to record these sentiments in the minutes, and to transmit them in the name of the Commission to Mrs. Olmsted and to their daughter, Mrs. Robert L. Gill, Palo Alto, Calif.
The members, at the 22 May 1958 meeting, expressed their regret over the deaths of Mr. Frederick V. Murphy, a former member of the Commission, and Mr. Louis A. Simon, who had served on both the Old Georgetown Board of Architectural Consultants and the Shipstead-Luce Panel.
Proposals to increase the membership of the Commission of Fine Arts and to expand its functions and duties have been considered by Members of Congress during the years covered by this report. Drafts of proposed legislation to accomplish these measures have been forwarded to the Commission for review and comment before enactment.
The comments of the Commission of Fine Arts have clarified the Commission’s position by stating that the specific projects which come before the Commission have involved matters of location and design requiring the expert advice of architects, landscape architects, painters, sculptors, and laymen qualified to render advice to the Government on mat
ters within the Commission's terms of reference. In arriving at conclusions involving judgment and expert advice, the members believe that it is necessary to have the opportunity for discussion and full interchange of views which is made possible by the fact that the Commission is composed of only seven members. This would be difficult, if not impossible, in a group composed of a larger number. To replace the Commission of Fine Arts by a larger body for representational purposes, consisting of 21 members, would be a retrogressive step in the direction of the 35-member Council of Fine Arts which President Taft abolished in 1909 and replaced by the present seven-member Commission of Fine Arts in 1910.
Since 1910 the service which the Commission has rendered has proven its usefulness. Today, the members believe that it would be a mistake if legislation were enacted which would change the functions of the Commission from those of advising the Government on esthetic matters that affect the city of Washington, as provided by law, to those of an initiating and administrative agency charged with functions that would be entirely different from those now performed. If duties of initiating and supporting professional and amateur activities in all fields of the fine arts throughout the country were added to those prescribed by the act of 1910, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts believe that it would concentrate in a few hands too much authority as regards art activities in this country which, in the field of creative art, have mostly developed as a result of private initiative. The membership of the Commission has not been increased nor the functions expanded by Congress during the period of this report.
The Commission of Fine Arts is not a contracting agency, but an advisory body established for the purposes outlined in the act of 1910. In establishing the Commission of Fine Arts, the Congress apparently did not intend to constitute a body with responsibility for building up art activities in this country, except as may result from securing for the Government the finest work obtainable from American artists in the design of governmental buildings, monuments, parks, medals; also sculpture, painting, and other decorations for public buildings. The members have noted that agencies in
page 2
the various departments and establishments of the Federal Government already exist and can, with adequate financial support, do much for the encouragement of the performing arts, without additional legislation.
The projects and questions which have come before the Commission of Fine Arts have been concerned with the visual not the performing arts. Ko member of the Commission represents such arts as music, ballet, the theater, etc., as provided in drafts of legislation submitted to the Commission for review before consideration by the Congress. If the Federal Government should at any time provide funds for the performance of these arts, especially music and ballet, the members of the Commission believe that such funds could be administered to greater advantage by a separate body on the order of the British Arts Council, which is organized to administer government subsidies for the performing arts.
Legislation for an auditorium in the Nation's Capital for the performing arts and other cultural activities had been introduced at many sessions of Congress for several years. Public demand over a period of years for Washington to take its place culturally among other capitals of the world resulted in the creation of the Auditorium Commission—Public Law 128—84th Congress, approved 1 July 1955—to formulate “plans for the design, location, financing and construction in the District of Columbia of a national civic auditorium, including an Inaugural Hall of Presidents and a music, fine arts and mass communications center.”
Being directed by Public Law 128 to report to the President and Congress by 1 February 1956, the Auditorium Commission was able to make only a preliminary report, since its late start prevented a complete report on the authorized date. Public Law 491—84th Congress, approved 27 April 1956, gave the Commission until 31 January 1957 to make its final report and recommendations.
To meet the nationwide interest which was arising concerning the development of the civic auditorium and cultural center, the Auditorium Commission established a Council of Sponsors, made up of organizations whose memberships were interested in the center, to serve as liaison between the Commission and the public. Mrs. Eugene Meyer, Chairman of the Audi
torium Commission, invited the Commission of Fine Arts by a letter of 1 July 1956 to join the Council of Sponsors.
The Commission of Fine Arts, interested in the development of a National Civic Auditorium and in its realization at the earliest possible date, replied that it has never acted as a sponsor for any particular project, because the members have believed that to do so would tend to sacrifice the independent position which they are required to take in judging matters of design. As an advisory body the Commission of Fine Arts offered its services to the Auditorium Commission whenever needed.
The Auditorium Commission’s report for a Cultural Center in Washington having been completed, Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission of Fine Arts stated on 7 February 1957 at a public hearing of the Senate and House District of Columbia Joint Subcommittee on the report:
Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a word,'on behalf of (he Commission of Fine Arts, about the Auditorium Commission’s report for a cultural center in Washington.
The Commission has made a splendid report and one that I am glad to endorse in every respect. The report is both comprehensive and practical. If carried out, it would provide the facilities we need and which are so sadly lacking in this, one of the great capitals of the world.
We need most of all a handsome auditorium or opera house where opera, ballet, and symphonic music can be performed. We need, also, a great hall for indoor meetings and functions such as we have frequently in Washington and for which no adequate building is available. A theater and other facilities recommended in this report are also needed, and I hope some way may be found of providing for them to be built without too much delay.
This project is one that has the strong and unqualified endorsement of the Commission of Fine Arts. In a report which the Commission made to the President in 1953, we recommended the establishment of a Music Center in Washington in which opera, ballet, and symphony concerts could be performed. We considered such an undertaking as of national, not merely local, importance. We also thought that assistance given by the Federal Government in providing a site or in helping other ways would be justified because it would be possible for people in all parts of the country to enjoy the performances by means of radio and television. We believe that the performing arts should be adequately housed here in Washington. We have supported the legislation that established the Auditorium Commission in the 84th Congress and have conferred with members of the Commission on sev
page 3
eral occasions during the course of their study, preceding the making of their report.
The problems involving the choice of a suitable site and the method of financing the project do not directly involve action by the Commission of Fine Arts. We do believe that the site should be accessible, that it should provide adequate parking, and that it should be chosen with due regard to the esthetic factors involved in an undertaking of such great importance to the city and the Nation.
The Commission of Fine Arts will be happy to advise as to the design and decoration of the various structures, when they are later brought to us for advice. 1 hope that may be soon, and that favorable action may be taken in the near future by the committees of the Senate and House and by the Congress on this well-thought-out and imaginative report of the Auditorium Commission. I believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to Mrs. Meyer and the members of the Commission for the work they have done on our behalf.
NATIONAL CULTURAL CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
Legislation to establish a suitable site for and a method of financing a national cultural center for the performing arts being introduced in the 85th Congress, the Commission of Fine Arts replied to a request from Senator Dennis Chavez for a report on S. 3335—85th Congress, as follows:
18 April 1958.
Dear Mr. Chairman : The Commission of Fine Arts has given careful consideration to your request of 2G February 1958, for a report on S. 3335—85th Congress, a bill “To provide for a National Capital Center of the Performing Arts which will be constructed, with funds raised by voluntary contributions, on part of the land in the District of Columbia made available for the Smithsonian Gallery of Art.” It is noted that this bill is identical with H.R. 9848, and that the purpose of this bill is one which the Commission of Fine Arts has long favored.
The members of the Commission believe, however, that the site on the south side of the Mall opposite the National Gallery may prove too small and would, therefore, not be the most appropriate one that could be found for this purpose.
We hope that the project itself may be authorized, and that another site may be provided if, after proper study, such a site should be found to be more suitable for the development of a center for the performing arts. It is recommended, therefore, that the legislation be amended to permit selection of a suitable site after studies have been made by the agencies of the Government that would be involved in the location, design, and operation of the center. The agencies involved would probably include the Smithsonian Institution, the General Services Administration, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your Committee.
For the Commission of Fine Arts : Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman. Hon. Dennis Chavez, Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works, 412 Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Since legislation was pending in Congress for the establishment of a center for the performing arts, and on other matters that may arise from time to time in this field, the Commission of Fine Arts decided to secure the service of distinguished professionals in the fields of music, opera, and drama, whose services would be available on a voluntary basis as are the services of the Board of Architectural Consultants on the Old Georgetown Act, and also the Shipstead-Luce Act. Announcing the selection of three distinguished professionals in the performing arts to serve on the panel, Chairman Finley released to the press, on 1 April 1958, the following:
In view of pending legislation authorizing the establishment of a National Cultural Center of the Performing Arts in Washington and other questions involving music which may arise from time to time, the Commission of Fine Arts, at its meeting on March 27, decided to establish an advisory panel of experts in the field of the performing arts whose advice would be available to the Commission from time to time as need might arise. The Commission is happy to announce that the following distinguished persons have accepted the invitation to serve on this advisory panel:
In the field of symphony orchestra and ballet, Dr. Howard Mitchell, conductor, National Symphony Orchestra; in the field of drama, the Reverend Gilbert Hartke, O.P., of Catholic University; in the field of opera and choral music, Mr. Paul Callaway, organist and choirmaster, Washington Cathedral, and conductor, Opera Society of Washington, Inc.
These professionals would not be members of the Commission of Fine Arts, whose membership is fixed by law, but would serve in an advisory capacity to the Commission of Fine Arts.
The members of the Advisory Panel on the Performing Arts attended the meeting Chairman David E. Finley arranged, as requested by Senator J. William Fulbright and Congressman Frank Thompson, Jr., for representatives of all governmental and private
page 4
organizations and groups interested in securing a government-owned site for the National Cultural Center for the Performing Arts. Organizations and groups represented: National Capital Planning Commission; American Planning and Civic Association; Public Buildings Service; Federal City Council; Bureau of the Budget; Smithsonian Institution; National Air Museum; Committee of 100 on the National Capital; Assistant to the Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia; Board of Trade; Opera Society of Washington; National Symphony Orchestra; National Opera Guild of Washington, D.C.; Hayes Concert Bureau; Institute of Contemporary Arts.
They gathered in the conference room of the Commission of Fine Arts on 20 May 1958 to consider four sites now in Government ownership: (1) the Mall site opposite the National Gallery of Art; (2) the River Site at 26th Street, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, south of New Hampshire Avenue; (3) the Constitution Avenue site of the old Naval Hospital, bounded by 23d Street on the east, Constitution Avenue on the south, 25th Street on the west, and E Street on the north; (4) the site of the Old Pension Office Building bounded by Fourth, Fifth, F, and G Streets NW. The River site at 26th Street, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, south of New Hampshire Avenue, was selected at this informal meeting.
Requested to report on H.R. 13017—85th Congress, a bill “To provide for a National Cultural Center which will be constructed with funds raised by voluntary contributions on a site made available in the District of Columbia,” the members of the Commission noted that this bill was identical with S. 3335—85th Congress, as amended during study of this problem. The views of the members were expressed by Chairman David E. Finley to Congressman Charles A. Buckley, chairman of the Committee on Public Works, in a letter of 2 July 1958, stating in part:
The Commission of Fine Arts has long favored ex-actment of legislation that will ensure the establishment of adequate facilities for the presentation of music and the performing arts in Washington. We endorse the River Site proposed in this legislation and believe that the provisions of this pending legislation will enable the responsible agencies to accomplish this purpose. We strongly urge favorable action on this bill by your committee.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE ARTS
Two bills—H.R. 5040 and H.R. 5756 of the 84th Congress—establishing a 21-member Fed-eral Advisory Commission on the Fine Arts within the Department of State and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare were reviewed by the members of the Commission of Fine Arts for their comments as requested by the Bureau of the Budget. Having recommended that action on the bills be deferred to the opinions of the two departments specified, the members stated, at the 9 December 1955 meeting, that such large groups were undesirable and impractical in actual work.
After reviewing S. 3054 and S. 3419 of the 84th Congress, bills “To provide for the establishment of a Federal Advisory Commission on the Arts,” Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission of Fine Arts submitted the members’ views, as expressed at the 6 April 1956 meeting, in a letter to Senator Lister Hill, chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, stating:
During the course of a meeting on 5-6 April 1956, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts accordingly took S. 3054 and S. 3419 under consideration and discussed their respective provisions. It was noted that the underlying purpose of both bills is to establish a Federal Advisory Commission on the Arts, in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and that its main duties will be to undertake studies of, and make recommendations relating to appropriate methods for encouragement of creative activity in the performance and practice of the arts, and of participation in, and appreciation of the arts.
We hope that early and favorable consideration will be given to legislation that will realize the objectives of these measures.
Of the two bills, we prefer S. 3054, which has the same approach to the objective as the legislative proposal submitted last year to the Congress by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and introduced as H.R. 5756. In S. 3054 and H.R. 5756, the activities of the advisory commission were intended to be kept within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and thus avoid danger of conflict with the established duties of the Commission of Fine Arts. The wording of this bill was worked out mutually by the Commission of Fine Arts and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and section 7 was inserted to guard against such overlapping of duties. We strongly urge that the advisory commission not be given wide authority to deal with all Federal departments and agencies direct as outlined in S. 3419. We believe that, or
page 5
ganizationally, such a relationship would be illogical, and mutually handicapping.
The report of the Commission of Fine Arts on S. 930 and S. 1716 of the 85th Congress was submitted as follows:
13 June 1957.
Dear Mr. Chairman : As requested in your letter of 14 May 1957, I am glad to give you the views of the Commission of Fine Arts with reference to S. 930, a bill “To provide for the establishment of a Federal Advisory Commission on the Arts, and for other purposes: ” and also with reference to S. 1716, a bill “To provide for the establishment of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts, and for other purposes.”
At a meeting held on 23 Alay 1957, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts discussed the respective provisions of the two bills. It was noted that the primary purpose of the proposed legislation was to establish advisory bodies within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to study and recommend methods to encourage creative activity in the performance and practice of the arts, and to arouse wider appreciation of the arts.
The members of the Commission of Fine Arts have asked me to state that they believe that enactment of legislation of this type and establishment of the advisory council as proposed in this legislation can be of assistance to the work of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, especially as regards the activities of the Office of Education.
Of the two bills, the members preferred S. 1716, because it provides for the establishment by the Advisory Council of smaller working committees to study specific phases of the problem. It is our experience that consideration by large groups tends to slow down action and reduce the chances of reaching an effective solution.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised us that it has no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.
For the Commission of Fine Arts:
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
Hon. Lister Hill,
Chairman, Labor and Public Welfare Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
CULTURAL ASPECTS OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
SYSTEM
Expressing concern for historic places and national parks throughout the country being-damaged by the highway program of the Bureau of Public Roads, Chairman David E. Finley stated the views of the members of the Commission of Fine Arts to Mr. Bertram D. Tallamy, Federal Highway Administrator, Bureau of Public Roads, in a letter of 30 January 1958, stating in part:
. : . It seems to me and to the other members of the Commission that it would be most helpful if a qualified art historian or conservationist could be attached to your office who could assist you in preventing damage to historic and scenic areas, which might be affected as a result of decisions at the local or State level. This would be in line with the policy followed by our Armed Forces in World War II on the recommendations of the American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas.
I might cite two examples where damage has been threatened by reason of decisions made at the State or local level. One is the case of the Alorris-town (N.J.) National Historical Park and the other is the Castillo de San Alarcos in St. Augustine, Fla. Another case in point is the proposed invasion of parklands, under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, surrounding the Lincoln Memorial in the District of Columbia and the Marine Memorial on the Virginia side of the river, by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia in preparing plans for the approaches to the bridge to be erected over the Potomac River. This bridge would be built with funds largely contributed, I understand, by the Bureau of Public Roads, whose approval of these plans is made mandatory in section 102 of Public Law 704—83d Congress.
The Commission of Fine Arts realizes the great responsibility imposed on you in carrying out the Federal highway program. We hope that you may find it possible to follow a policy similar to that adopted by our Armed Forces on the recommendations of the American Commission, which went to very great lengths to protect the cultural values of war areas and in this way to avoid much unnecessary destruction of art treasures and other cultural monuments in other countries. The Commission believes we should make at least as great an effort to protect historic monuments and areas of scenic beauty in our own country, and hopes you may succeed in doing this in carrying out the tremendous task in which you are engaged.
Mr. Tallamy’s reply, dated 13 February 1958, was:
First, I want to assure you again, . . . that we are in full accord regarding objectives. The legislation gives the State highway departments the initiative in all Federal Aid highway improvements and the Bureau of Public Roads exercises the power of review and approval. As a practical matter our division engineers are in constant touch with the engineers of the highway departments so that differences are ironed out during the preliminary and active plan preparation stages of location and design. I know of no better way to assure our common objectives in preserving the amenities than to have our division engineers watch for these things during the preliminary stages of highway development. The program is too large anyway for retaining Washington control at every stage. The Washington office has the important functions of making
page 6
policy, developing criteria to insure that these policies are followed, and of consultation and advice to our field offices, the States, and the political subdivisions thereof. We are constantly in touch with our field offices, and conferences of our division engineers and members of their staffs are held frequently to insure that our views are carried into active practice. As an example, I am enclosing a copy of a directive which I issued on 18 June 1957, with particular reference to the matter of fitting the highways into the landscape to increase their safety, utility and appearance.
The matter of preserving architectural and historical monuments is ever in our minds. As an example, the Morristown (N.J.) National Historical Park problem, to which you refer in your letter, is under restudy by the New Jersey State Highway Department at our request, to reconcile the traffic and economic needs of the community with the impact the Interstate highway might have on the esthetic values in the vicinity of the monument. 1 am not familiar with the other matter you refer to, the Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine, Fla., but I will have this matter investigated at once.
No further communication on this subject was exchanged during the period of this report.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN PROBLEMS
A joint congressional committee, appointed to study the problems in connection with the growth and expansion of the District of Columbia and the metropolitan area, requested that the Commission of Fine Arts list for the committee’s use the problems on this subject which would come within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Chairman David E. Finley’s reply to Senator Alan Bible, chairman of the congressional committee, submitted the views of the members of the Commission as expressed at the 21 November 1957 meeting and enumerated by the Vice-Chairman, Douglas W. Orr, as follows:
1.	Is Washington to be developed as the Capital of the country or as just another commercial city? If the former, then the expenditure of Federal funds for this purpose should be in accordance with the recommendations of Federal agencies, such as the National Park Service, the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, the General Services Administration, etc. Authority should be coordinated with the metropolitan area, probably through the National Capital Planning Commission, as regards problems of transportation, water supply, etc.
2.	Adequate, fast, and comfortable mass transportation should be provided to bring people in the District of Columbia and its metropolitan area to
and from their work. Such transportation is not available at present, resulting in a steady increase in the number of privately owned automobiles, together with increasing demands for river crossings, inner-belt-loops, freeways, parking areas, etc., that threaten ultimately to destroy the beauty of the city without providing a satisfactory solution of the traffic problem or arresting urban deterioration. The location of express highways by highway engineers without adequate regard for or cooperation with planning agencies threatens some of our most important historical buildings and areas.
3.	Government agencies should not be permitted to select sites for new buildings. Such selection should be made by the planning agencies in accordance with the comprehensive plan of 1950, initiated by the National Capital Planning Commission and concurred in by the Commission of Fine Arts and the General Services Administration. The Government should acquire land in various parts of the city on which future buildings could be erected.
4.	Threats to appearance of the city of Washington :
a.	By changes in zoning and heights of buildings.
b.	By invasion of monumental areas, as in the case of the bridge to be erected over the Potomac River, which with its connecting roadways will seriously mar the setting of the Lincoln Memorial, Memorial Bridge, Theodore Roosevelt Island, Arlington National Cemetery, and the Marine Memorial.
c.	Street lighting.
d.	Preservation of the skyline across the Potomac River, as seen from the Lincoln Memorial.
5.	Development of the Mall as a cultural center for museums.
6.	Development of the Foggy Bottom area as a site for a National Auditorium and Cultural Center.
7.	Redevelopment of Southwest and Northwest areas.
8.	Enforcement of Shipstead-Luce Act and Old Georgetown Act.
9.	Failure of Government agencies, such as the Atomic Energy Commission, to consult Federal agencies, such as the Commission of Fine Arts, as to site and design of buildings. An Executive order could require all such agencies within the metropolitan area to consult duly constituted Federal agencies, as Government units in the District of Columbia now are required to do.
10.	Inadequate sites for buildings. A building too large for its site cannot achieve the dignity befitting a monumental structure, regardless of the skill expended in its design, as witness the building being erected for the Department of State. In modern architectural thought, location, as well as design of the building, is an essential element from an esthetic point of view.
11.	Failure of the Federal Government to purchase land within the boundaries established by the Plan of 1941, as revised January 1957. and adopted by the National Capital Planning Commission with the concurrence of the Commission of Fine Arts.
page 7
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION
A resolution adopted by the Board of the American Institute of Architects was read by Chairman Finley at the 9 May 1956 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, as follows:
Resolved
That the American Institute of Architects urge the introduction of a bill in Congress requiring the approval of the Fine Arts Commission on plans of all new public structures or major alterations to public structures in the District of Columbia.
The Executive Director of the American Institute of Architects, Mr. Edmund Purves, and members of the Commission discussed, during the 14 June 1956 meeting, a resolution of the
Board of the American Institute of Architects to have the enabling legislation of the Commission of Fine Arts amended to give it veto power or approval power of buildings or other structures that come under its jurisdiction instead of advisory powers that the law authorizes. Such an amendment was not desirable, or necessary, the members stated. The invitation from Mr. Purves to the members of the Commission of Fine Arts to participate in a meeting the American Institute of Architects was planning for its centennial celebration May 1957, was accepted by the members. The Chairman, Mr. David E. Finley, was elected to honorary membership in the American Institute of Architects at this time.
page 8
CHAPTER
T W O ☆
Public Buildings
FUTURE GROWTH OF THE CAPITAL
A REPORT from the Commission of Fine Arts on H.J. Res. 690, 84th Congress, a joint resolution “To preserve the economic basis of the Nation's Capital by establishing a basic policy and an orderly procedure for the location of new Federal buildings in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia,” was submitted in a letter from Chairman David E. Finley of 22 October 1955 to Congressman Buckley, chairman of the House Committee on Public Works, stating:
The members of the Commission of Fine Arts believe that the Constitution is very clear in the intention to locate the agencies of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia. The Congress and the President have, from time to time, established agencies, such as the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission, with duties to recommend directions in which the Capital City can be developed and grow. Rapid growth has made the location of Government agencies within this area a very technical matter of city planning, and policies for such placement should, the Commission believes, not be determined except after the pursuance of a technical survey. It seems that the planning agencies, in general, are the logical authorities to determine the precise locations for agencies, and that the approval of such plans should stem from their studies. We have never supported the idea that the heads of agencies should be allowed to choose the sites for their new buildings without conformity to the development of the overall plan of Washington, and we hope that it will be possible for Congress to support the planning agencies in their efforts to decide the problems involved rather than making Congressional approval mandatory as proposed in H.J. Res. 690—84th Congress.
Another factor that should not be overlooked in this problem is the growing tendency of commerce, industry, and national organization headquarters, etc., to move into land reserved for Government expansion. Established Government-taking areas have been destroyed by the zoning process and uti
lized for purposes other than was intended. It is a fundamental principle of the Commission of Fine Arts that, in all these considerations, the preservation of the Federal City is the primary problem on which attention should be focused, and that other spaces and means should be found to accommodate the components of the city which are only incidental to the functioning of the Government.
TEMPORARY BUILDINGS
II.R. 2968 and II.R. 3110—84th Congress, two bills “To establish a Commission to prepare a plan for the removal of temporary Government buildings in the District of Columbia, for the accommodation in other buildings of the personnel employed in such temporary buildings, and for other purposes,” were reviewed at the 13 April 1955 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts with a report sent to Congressman Charles A. Buckley, chairman, Committee on Public Works, from Chairman Finley in a letter dated 18 April 1955, containing:
As requested in your letter of 1 April 1955, the members discussed the provisions of the bills in detail and they unanimously endorsed the establishment of the Commission proposed in the legislation. The removal of the temporary buildings from the monumental areas of the District of Columbia has long been an aim of the Commission.
In discussing with representatives of the General Services Administration the removal of temporary buildings, the members of the Commission suggested to remove first the most objectionable building, as:
(1) The building in the triangle where Pennsylvania Avenue terminates at the southeast end of the Treasury Department Building.
(2) The central range of buildings on 17th Street NW., which intrude across the vista between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial.
page 9
Lincoln Memorial Area, view from the east obstructed by temporary buildings.
IDENTIFICATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Having introduced a bill proposing that all public buildings be identified with the name of the agency occupying it, the Honorable Oliver P. Bolton, Congressman from Ohio, arranged a meeting in his office on 30 April 1956 for a discussion of this bill by the Administrator of General Services, the Commissioner of Public Buildings, the Supervising Architect of General Services Administration, and the Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts. The results of the meeting were forwarded to Congressman Bolton by Mr. Fred S. Poorman, Commissioner of Public Buildings, as follows:
4 May 1956.
Hon. Oliver P. Bolton,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Re: Identification of Government Buildings.
Dear Mr. Bolton : Your letter of 21 April reported a need for marking the Government buildings in Washington and requested that study be given to the matter of determining a prominent and uniform system of marking the buildings so that they can be readily identified by visitors to the city.
The meeting with you in your office on 30 April, attended by Mr. Charles A. Peters, Director, Buildings Management, and Mr. L. L. Hunter, Supervising Architect, of this office, and Mr. Linton R. Wilson, Secretary, Fine Arts Commission, explored the various methods that might be followed in finding a suitable solution. It was pointed out that the necessity for moving the various departments and agencies from one building to another in order to meet their
changing needs and also to secure the best utilization of space makes it undesirable in most instances to carve the name of the agency in permanent letters on the building.
Two methods of solving the problem were considered. One would consist of placing suitable raised metal letters on the stonework and the other would employ a metal plaque with contrasting letters on a bronze background. The latter seemed to meet most of the needs and could be used most easily where departments are moved about or where several agencies occupy a single building.
It was agreed that a tentative design for a suitable plaque or other device for marking the buildings would be developed for submission to the Fine Arts Commission for consideration. We also plan to send you a list of the other agencies in Washington responsible for Government buildings, in order that you may suggest to them that they cooperate with us in the overall project of suitably marking the Federal buildings.
We will be in touch with you further as our study progresses.
Sincerely yours,
Fred S. Poorman, Commissioner of Public Buildings.
Hearing the report of this meeting from Mr. Linton R. Wilson, Secretary of the Commission, on 9 May 1956, the members agreed that the method of having a metal plaque with contrasting letters on a bronze background was more practical than raised letters on the stonework.
An alternate scheme of placing the desired lettering on comparatively small standards to be set on the steps or adjacent to the entrance
page 10
of the building was considered at the 14 June 1956 meeting of the Commission attended by Congressman Bolton. Either this scheme or the one mentioned above would be more flexible than carving the lettering into the stone of the wall. The members of the Commission voiced no objection to General Services Administration’s proceeding to mark buildings in accordance with either of these two methods.
DECORATION IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS
The National Academy of Design having indorsed the report to the President entitled “Art and Government,” prepared in 1953 by the Commission of Fine Arts, recommended for better governmental buildings and for more satisfactory embellishment of the same when erected outside the District of Columbia, the following:
Architecture : In connection with Federal building projects outside of the District of Columbia, the American Institute of Architects recommend to the Commissioner of the Public Building Service (of the General Services Administration) a panel of names of architects from which three will be selected by the Commissioner to serve as members of a council to advise this agency of the Government in the selection of architects to execute proposed projects.
Sculpture : In the decoration of Federal buildings erected outside of the District of Columbia in which sculpture is to be used, a council consisting of two sculptors and the Chief Architect of the Public Buildings Service advise with respect to sculptors selected by architects to collaborate on each project. The two sculptors to serve on the council would be selected by the Chief Architect on advice from the Commission of Fine Arts.
The academy’s recommendations were accepted, in general, by the Commission at the 10 November 1954 meeting and forwarded to Mr. Fred S. Poorman, Acting Commissioner of Public Buildings Service. Mr. Poorman replied:
Our normal procedure is based on the policy of giving preference to architects in the area in which the project is to be erected. At the appropriate time, information is obtained by questionnaires from these architects (some of which may not be AIA members). Based upon the information supplied by these questionnaires, a panel composed of the Director of Design and Construction, the Supervising Architect, and the Architect in charge of Professional Services selects and recommends to the Commissioner of Public Buildings the firm or firms best qualified to perform the required services, taking into consideration design ability, technical sufficien
cies, records of performance, organization, etc. We propose, as a general practice, to continue this procedure.
Problems involved in providing mural paintings, sculpture, etc., in Government projects were discussed by the members of the Commission of Fine Arts with Mr. Edmund F. Mansure and Mr. Peter A. Strobel, Administrator and Commissioner of Public Buildings Service at the 6 October 1955 meeting. A recommendation was made that representatives of both groups draft legislation providing for decorations in public buildings under joint administration of the Commission and General Services Administration.
In preparing a draft, the members of the Commission and Mr. L. L. Hunter of Public Buildings Service discussed a method of obtaining necessary funds. This method, which was considered at the 5 April 1956 meeting, provided that Congress be asked to establish a fund to be administered jointly by the Commission of Fine Arts and the Public Buildings Service for the purpose intended.
Being requested to report on U.K. 12060— 84th Congress, a bill “To provide for decorative art in Federal buildings,” Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission expressed the members’ views on the bill to Congressman Charles A. Buckley, chairman of the House Committee on Public Works, in a letter of 22 October 1956, stating:
The Commission of Fine Arts considered H.R. 12060 at a meeting on 13 September and discussed the provisions of this bill in detail. It is a matter of record that the Commission of Fine Arts has always worked for more utilization of decorative arts in public buildings, and the members have regretted the slow pace at which resumption of such programs has been undertaken since the end of World War II, when projects of this kind were completely interrupted.
We have been studying means of achieving these ends during the past 6 months with the Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration. Experience indicates that the percentage method of arriving at a sum for the decoration of a building may not be the most satisfactory because it produces a serious imbalance between large and small projects and does not always permit equitable provision of decorative art for all projects. Our studies have gradually narrowed themselves to a plan whereby a sum of money should be appropriated to the General Services Administration for use to accomplish this purpose. The allocation and administration of such funds would then become a joint responsibility between the Commission of Fine Arts
page 11
and the Public Buildings Service. In this way decorative art could be commissioned in amount and quality to harmonize with the architectural framework of the building that is projected.
We also believe that the Commission of Fine Arts should be included in the early stages of consultation as regards location and design of proposed buildings so that we can effectively advise the Public Buildings Service and the agency head in these matters as well as in the selection of the artists to decorate the buildings. We hope that you will consider these ideas in any revision which may be contemplated for legislation on this subject.
A draft of the proposed bill, prepared by Public Buildings Service and the Commission of Fine Arts, was sent to the Bureau of the Budget with the following letter:
10 March 1958.
Dear Mr. Brundage : The members of the Commission of Fine Arts have asked me to forward for consideration a draft bill, which they would like to sponsor, authorizing a fund to be used for commissioning artists to produce suitable works of art for the public buildings erected in the District of Columbia and its environs, by the Federal and District of Columbia Governments.
The Commission of Fine Arts deplores the dearth of painting, sculpture, and other ornamental features in the public buildings constructed since World War II. The plainness and severity of postwar architectural design demands supporting features which only the arts can supply. Unfortunately, budgeting for these decorative features has almost entirely been suspended and, when included, money for works of art is the first item to be eliminated if bids exceed expectations and cuts must be made.
To alleviate this unfortunate situation, the Commission of Fine Arts, after consultation with the General Services Administration, is proposing that the Administrator of General Services be authorized to establish a fund which will be controlled jointly by the Commission of Fine Arts and the General Services Administration for commissioning suitable works of art for public buildings.
A fund, rather than a percentage of each building cost, was decided upon because not all buildings will require expenditures for decoration relative to contract price. A special fund based on a percentage of the total building program in the District of Columbia will allow works of art to be placed where they are needed in relation to the overall building plans, and will eliminate the likelihood of their being stricken entirely from the plans. We feel that no time limit should be put on the use of the fund in order that it can be most economically used for the best artistic development; and in succeeding years percentages of funds for building programs can be added as they are authorized.
The administration of such a fund will require no change in the functions which the Commission of Fine Arts and the General Services Administration now perform, but it will assure that money is avail
page 12
able when required to complete the designs of governmental buildings and adjacent grounds, and prevent the barren monotony that only a judicious use
of art can remedy.
The Commission, as you know, has no legal counsel and we realize it may be necessary to change the text of the draft to make it conform to your legal standards. I will be glad to confer with you on this and other features of the draft legislation and hope
that it will be practicable to have this legislation introduced before the end of the present session of
Congress. The artists of the country have long advocated that something of this kind be done, which will reflect the concern of this country to give more
official recognition to the arts.
For the Commission of Fine Arts :
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
Hon. Percival F. Brundage, Director, Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
No legislation to provide for commissioning the works of artists and sculptors for governmental projects was introduced in Congress during the period covered by this report.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE EXTENSION OF EXISTING BUILDING
A model of the proposed addition to the State Department Building presented at the 17 February 1956 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts showed the building extending west from 21st Street to 23d Street and South to C Street NW., occupying the entire property and surrounding two interior courts. Approving the plan, in principle, the members of the Commission noted it would occupy three city squares and close 22d Street between C and E Streets. The main entrance on the south facade of the new building would present an opportunity for a monumental approach to the Department of State from Constitution Avenue in the area of the Lincoln Memorial. A letter to Mr. Fred S. Poorman, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service of General Services Administration, containing the action taken during the meeting and other information pertinent to this project, follows:
26 March 1956.
Mr. Fred S. Poorman,
Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration,
Washington. D.C.
Dear Mr. Poorman : The members of the Commission of Fine Arts were glad to see, at their meet
ing on 17 February 1956, the early stages of the plans which are being prepared for the complex of buildings for the use of the Department of State, between C and E Streets, and 21st and 23d Streets NW. At this meeting the associated architects were represented by Mr. Marvin Probst and Mr. T. Clifford Noonan of Graham, Anderson, Probst & White, Chicago, Ill., and by Mr. Frederick M. Harley and Mr. Malcolm R. Striton of Harley, Ellington & Day, of Detroit, Mich. Mr. L. L. Hunter, Supervising Architect, Mr. Phil Wilson, architect, and yourself represented the Public Buildings Service, and Mr. Nelson A. Kenworthy, consultant, represented the Department of State.
The copies of drawings received at the Commission’s offices on 8 March 1956 have been made part of the record. The Commission approved, in principle, the plans as presented. Special note was taken of locating the main entrance of the building at 22d and C Streets, thus providing the possibility of a monumental vista from Constitution Avenue. However, the present intention of the National Association of Life Underwriters to erect a headquarters building on the lot at the southwest corner, 22d and C Streets, will seriously hamper the realization of this aim, and we believe steps should be taken to revive a plan of last year to purchase additional land to locate the National Association of Life Underwriters building to the west in the middle of the block.
We will be glad to confer with you as to the progress of the State Department plans at the next meeting of the Commission at 10 a.m., on the morning of April 6.
By direction of the Chairman:
L. R. Wilson, Secretary.
Conferring with, representatives of the Public Buildings Service, the Department of State, and the architects, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts, at the 6 April 1956 meeting, expressed some reservations about the size and mass of the proposed structure and suggested that revised drawings be submitted as the plans developed. In order to avoid delay, the architect members of the Commission and the representatives of the Public Buildings Service agreed to meet in the office of Mr. Wallace K. Harrison, an architect member of the Commission, in New York on 4 June 1956 to discuss revisions suggested during the 10 May meeting attended by representatives of the Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, and the architects.
A new series of drawings for the building incorporating the suggestions made during the conference in Mr. Harrison’s office were presented at the 14 June 1956 meeting. The greatest change involved not attempting an
architectural juncture in masonry between the existing building and the new structure on 21st Street. Separating the two structures with a metal and glass section appeared to help solve the design problem. The architects and representatives of the Public Buildings Service agreed with the members of the Commission that the facades were satisfactory except for the E Street facade, which they thought should also express a franker break with the old building.
During the months, studies were continued with progress noted in the design as presented at the 13 September 1956 meeting. Agreeing that the design now appeared to be consistent throughout and to have largely met the suggestions of the Commission, the members approved the plans and expressed the hope that the treatment of the main courtyard and the details of its approaches through the building would be submitted as they were developed. As the members stated, in this part of the project there existed a great opportunity to produce something of merit and interest.
The problem of providing suitable sculpture and painting for the building was also discussed at this 13 September 1956 meeting. Mr. L. L. Hunter of the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, stated that approximately $200,000 had been allocated for this purpose and that a program would be prepared for the use of art in the decoration of the building. Deciding that a sculptor should be selected to collaborate with the architects in this program, the members of the Commission agreed that similar programs for other work by artists should be initiated. Stating that the desires of the State Department should be the basis of any program, the members forwarded their views to Mr. Franklin C. Floete, Administrator, General Services Administration, as follows:
5 October 1956.
Dear Mr. Floete : During the course of our discussion of the plans for the proposed State Department annex with your representatives on 13 September 1956, the problem of providing suitable decorative sculpture and painting for the building was raised. We were advised that a sum of approximately $200,000 has been allocated for this purpose, and that Mr. Marshall Fredericks, a sculptor, was being considered to collaborate with the architects in preparing a program for the sculptural adornment of the building.
page 13
We believe that $200,000 is inadequate to furnish decorative art for a building of the State Department’s importance, especially when the total cost of the building is considered. We hope steps can be taken to increase the funds so that a program can be initiated which will give the State Department an appropriate number of works of art of the best quality that American talent can produce.
The members of the Commission agreed to the suggestion that Mr. Fredericks be authorized to prepare a sculpture program in which the talents of more than one sculptor will be utilized, and they believe that Mr. Fredericks’ assistance in preparing the program should not exclude him later from execution of a part of the program, if that is desired. We wish to stress, however, that the size of the building will allow for the employment of artists other than sculptors, and that a comprehensive program should also include works by painters and designers in the crafts.
The determination of such a program is important now while the building is still in a formative stage and constructive ideas that arise may still be incorporated.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
Hon. Fbanklin G. Floete, Administrator,
General Services Administration, Washington, D.C.
The general plan for landscaping the exterior courts was explained by Mr. Ed Laird, landscape architect of Detroit, Mich., to the Commission of Fine Arts at the 24 January 1957 meeting. Using drawings, Mr. Laird stated his desire to arrange the planting to create pleasant gardens in the courts, where people could enter from the cafeteria or from the offices for a few minutes of relaxation. Discussing the lifespan of trees and grass in paved areas, the members of the Commission agreed that a tub garden would be preferable to large areas of ground planting, and recommended the use of vines and evergreens as well as reflecting pools and fountains. The plans, although in sketch form, showed promise.
A comprehensive program for exterior sculpture was presented at this same meeting by Mr. Marshall Fredericks, sculptor. The plan called for two decorative screens of granite and for heraldic, freestanding eagles on pedestals flanking the main entrance at 21st and C Streets, and two sculptural groups with symbolic figures in limestone at each side of the north entrance. The main, or south court, would have a circular fountain of aluminum
and enamel, with the bottom of the pool having a mosaic pattern—a decorative feature when empty. The smaller north court would have a lighter theme with a central piece of sculpture. Approving the program, in general, the members of the Commission thought more study was needed to make the details of the sculpture completely acceptable.
Interior sculpture and mural paintings were mentioned by Mr. Fredericks at the 24 January 1957 meeting. Since no more than $200,-000 would be available for all sculpture, murals, etc., the members of the Commission of Fine Arts discussed the best use of the comparatively small sum with Mr. L. L. Hunter, Public Buildings Service, Mr. T. Clifford Noonan, architect, Mr. Fredericks, sculptor, and Mr. Laird, landscape architect. The general opinion was to concentrate on quality rather then quantity in the sculpture and murals. The Commission thought that as many different sculptors as possible should be used, and again stressed that the suggestions of the Department of State should be procured and considered before any final decisions were made on the form or subject of these features.
Revised designs and sketches for the exterior courts in the Department of State extension were presented by Mr. Noonan, architect, at the 14 March 1957 meeting attended by Mr. Thomas S. Estes, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Satisfied in general with the designs of the courts, the members approved them as submitted.
Having been able to reserve $250,000 for interior sculpture and mural painting in the new extension for the State Department Building, Mr. Hunter, Public Buildings Service, submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts preliminary sketches for sculpture at the C and E Street entrances and in the south courtyard, prepared by Walker Hancock, Gloucester, Mass., Marshall Fredericks, Royal Oaks, Mich.; and Albert Stewart, Los Angeles, Calif. A sketch by Thomas McClure was also submitted for one of the screens at the C Street entrance. Sculpture for the north courtyard was left to be considered later. Studying the photographs and sketches at the 21 November 1957 meeting, the members of the Commission submitted their advice to Mr. F. Moran McConihe of General Services Administration in the following letter:
page 14
10 December 1957.
Dear Mr. McConihe : The members of the Commission of Fine Arts, at their meeting on 21 November 1957, were glad to see the sketches submitted by the four sculptors under consideration for the decoration of the new building to be erected for the Department of State.
They believe that the sculptors proposed by you— Walker Hancock, Marshall Fredericks, Thomas McClure, and Albert Stewart—are all competent to do this work. The designs submitted left something to be desired, but with further study and especially with consultations between the architects, sculptors, the Department of State, and the Commission of Fine Arts, we think satisfactory results can be achieved.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman. Hon. F. Moran McConihe, Commissioner of Public Buildings, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C.
No further study was made of the extension for State Department Building during this report period.
LOCATION OF COURT OF CLAIMS BUILDING
In approving a recommendation that the site at the northeast corner of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., now occupied by the Court of Claims, should be reserved for activities related to the executive establishment, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts, at the 6 April 1956 meeting, expressed the hope that a building for the court be located in the vicinity of Judiciary Square or the Supreme Court. A letter expressing the member’s views was forwarded to the Congress as follows:
10 April 1956.
Dear Congressman Buckley: Your letter of 15 March 1956 requested the views of the Commission of Fine Arts with respect to H.R. 9873—84th Congress, a bill “To provide for the construction, equipment, and furnishing of a building for the United States Court of Claims, and for other purposes.”
At a meeting on 5 April 1956, the members of the Commission considered the provisions of H.R. 9873, and it was agreed to recommend that H.R. 9873 not be enacted in its present form. We would be happy to see the United States Court of Claims appropriately housed elsewhere in a new building designed for the court’s specific use, and. if such a building is authorized, we will gladly assist in advising the architects on the exterior design. We believe that land in the area now occupied should be reserved for the expansion of the executive branch of the Government, and that relocation of the Court of Claims in a new building in the vicinity of the Su
preme Court or Judiciary Square will contribute to the orderly development of the plan of Washington. We hope, therefore, that H.R. 9873 will be reconsidered and a site selected that will conform with the long-range plans for the city.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.
For the Commission of Fine Arts: Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
Hon. Charles A. Buckley, Chairman, House Committee on Public Works, ISOJf Neiv House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Representatives of the National Capital Planning Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, the General Services Administration, and the Commission of Fine Arts met on 14 June 1956 to consider a location for a new Court of Claims building and agreed that the square northeast of the Supreme Court Building, bounded by 2d Street, Constitution Avenue, 3d Street, and A Street NE., was an appropriate site.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Museum of History and Technology: Public Law 106-—84th Congress authorized the planning and construction of this Museum. The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, with the approval of the Chancellor of the Regents, Chief Justice Earl Warren, selected the New York firm of McKim, Mead & White as principal architects. The firm of Mills, Petti-cord & Mills, of Washington, D.C., was chosen as associates in performing the work specified in the contract under conditions mutually satisfactory to the regents and the two firms.
Congress having appropriated funds for the Museum fronting on Constitution Avenue between 12th and 14th Streets NW., the models for the Museum were studied by the members of the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts at a joint meeting on 14 June 1956. The relationship of the new building to existing building lines and the general Mall perspective were discussed by the members of both Commissions. The platform-type design seemed to rise with greater bulk and with greater contrast to the scale of the surrounding buildings, especially from the street level. This design was preferred.
page 15
Museum of History and Technology, Constitution Avenue, between 12th and 14th Streets NW.
Continuing their study of the design, the architects resubmitted a more detailed plan at the 21 November 1957 meeting. The method of lighting the galleries with its resultant effect on the form of the building was discussed, as well as the increased use of the workspace near the roof area. Agreeing that the architects had made a commendable plan, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts approved the design for the Museum.
Planning to make a contract with Mr. Paul Manship to write a program for the sculpture and to be sculptural coordinator for developing the program for the building, Mr. L. L. Hunter of the Public Buildings Service stated that Mr. Manship would also be asked to make one of the sculptures. The program and the names of other sculptors to work with Mr. Manship on the project were submitted to the members of the Commission of Fine Arts, who approved making the contract with Mr. Manship on 22 May 1958.
National Air Museum: Giving a brief history of the plans to erect this building on the south side of Independence Avenue between 12th and and 9th Streets, with the central axis on 10th Street SW., Dr. Leonard Carmichael, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, stated at the 9 November 1955 meeting of the Commission that the New York architectural firm of Mc-
Kim, Mead & White was employed and had prepared elaborate studies for the proposed museum at this location.
The conflict between the plans to use this location for the proposed National Air Museum and the plans of the Redevelopment Land Agency for the Southwest Area C had been studied jointly by architects for the Museum and representatives of the agency in an effort to resolve the overlapping problems. No satisfactory solution was reached.
Commenting that this site on the Mall opposite the National Gallery of Art had been reserved many years for a museum of contemporary art including the National Collection of Fine Arts, Dr. Carmichael expressed his opinion at the 17 October 1957 meeting that, since the Old Patent Office Building could now be used for the National Portrait Gallery and the National Collection of Fine Arts, the site reserved for the art museum on the Mall could be well used for the air museum. Office buildings having been tentatively approved for the space south of Independence Avenue previously designated for the museum, the members thought reconsideration of this site problem was appropriate.
At a hearing held 22 April 1958 before the Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds of the Senate Committee on Public Works on
page 16
S. 1985 relating to the construction of a National Air Museum, Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission of Fine Arts stated:
The Commission understands that the Smithsonian Institution wishes the site on the Mall to be made available for an Air Museum, as provided in S. 1985, now pending before the Senate Committee on Public Works. The Commission of Fine Arts would like, of course, whenever possible, to support the views of the agency involved in all matters concerning plans for expansion or additions to existing facilities. This is particularly true in the case of the Smithsonian Institution with its distinguished Board of Regents and directing officer, Dr. Carmichael. But the Commission of Fine Arts has never favored the location of an Air Museum on the Mall site and can find no reasons to change its views in this matter. In response to a request from the chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, the Commission recommended that the site for such a museum should be fixed only after careful study by the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the Smithsonian Institution. We still think such a study should be made. First, because the site may prove too small for a museum of this character which should have space for future expansion; and second, because in our opinion, plans for an Air Museum should be held in abeyance until a report has been made by the Commission recently appointed by the President to make recommendations for a Museum of the Armed Forces which would presumably include the Air Force along with the Army and Navy. It seems obvious that a much larger site than any available in the Mall would be required for such a museum.
Discussing legislation to provide for the acquisition of property in Prince Georges County, Md., for the site of the National Air Museum, the members reaffirmed their preference for the erection of this Museum within the District of Columbia. Noting at the 27 March 1958 meeting that the President had appointed a commission to study plans for a military museum which might include an air museum, the members were of the opinion that they should take no action on a site for an air museum until the report on the proposed military museum was completed.
Natural History Museum: A brief background of the proposed extension to the east and west wings of the Natural History Museum Building at 10th Street and Constitution Avenue NW. was given by Dr. John L. Kecldy, Assistant Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, to the members of the Commission of Fine Arts on 2 December 1954. The preliminary sketch plans showed the additions of wings on the east
and west sides to provide more space as an alternative to filling the existing court areas. Technical data and sketches relative to materials, dimensions, air conditioning, lighting of the wings, etc., were provided by Mr. L. L. Hunter, Public Buildings Service, with the plans showing each wing 165 feet by 180 feet, following the lines of the present building.
Considering the extension of the wings to be the most practical solution to provide storage and research space, the members approved, in principle, this plan for additional workspace for the Museum. Models, plans, and drawings were resubmitted for the consideration of the Commission on 21 November 1957. Discussing in detail the architectural features of the design for the wings and their relation to the existing building, the members thought the architects had successfully solved the problem of joining the mass of the two new wings in a manner that would harmonize with the old building and still keep the total mass in scale with the buildings adjacent to it. Approval of the design, as presented, was given at this meeting.
National Collection of Fine Arts Museum: After receiving H.K. 4307—84th Congress, a bill “To amend the joint resolution of 17 May 1938 to provide for the construction and maintenance of a National Collection of Fine Arts Museum on the site set aside for an art gallery thereunder, and for other purposes,” the Commission of Fine Arts replied to Congressman Buckley’s request for their opinion of the bill, in a letter of 21 March 1955, stating:
Two facts emerged from the discussion that influenced the Commission’s decision not to endorse enactment of the legislation proposed in II.R. 4307: first, the site is not large enough to accommodate a structure or structures that will satisfy the Smithsonian’s needs for a museum, and also fulfill the space requirement of the proposed auditoria and auxiliary services such as parking; and second, the addition of a cultural center to the responsibilities of the Smithsonian Institution would seriously alter its fundamental purpose and organizational structure.
The Commission hopes that the Congress will authorize legislation establishing a commission to study the problems involved in the site and component structures of a cultural center for Washington as is contemplated by H.R. 1825 and II.R. 4215—84th Congress and their 14 or so companion bills. Until such a commission can report, the choice of a site and the assignment of administrative responsibility is believed to be premature.
page 17
Ill reply to a request for the views of the Commission of Fine Arts on enrolled bill S. 1894—85th Congress, “An act to provide for the transfer of the Civil Service Building m the District of Columbia to the Smithsonian Institution to house certain art collections of the Smithsonian Institution,” Chairman David E. Finley stated in a letter of 25 March 1958 to Mr. Percival F. Brundage, Director of the Bureau of the Budget:
The members of the Commission recommend that this legislation be signed by the President and enacted into law. The preservation of the Old Patent Office Building (present Civil Service Commission Building) and its dedication to use for museum purposes by the Smithsonian Institution will mean a great forward step for the artists and people of this country.
Public Law 357—85th Congress, approved 28 March 1958, provided for the transfer of the Civil Service Commission Building to the Smithsonian Institution to house certain art collections of the Smithsonian Institution.
The following report covers other legislation on the Civil Service Commission Building and the views of the Commission of Fine Arts on such legislation.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION BUILDING (OLD PATENT OFFICE BUILDING)
H.R. 4687—84th Congress, a bill “To authorize the Administrator of General Services to dispose of certain real property in the District of Columbia,” was disapproved at the meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts on 15 March 1955. The opinion of the Commission on this proposed legislation was expressed by chairman David E. Finley to Congressman Charles A. Buckley, chairman of the Committee on Public Works, in a letter of 18 March 1955, stating:
The Commission could not give its approval to the destruction of an important historical and architectural monument such as the Old Patent Office Building. The building now fulfills a useful purpose. The members believe that this building, of which the distinguished American architect, Robert Mills, was architect in charge of construction, should be preserved, and that its destruction, as a result of action taken by the Federal Government, would have a discouraging effect on the movement for the preservation of architectural and historical monuments in this country in which the Federal Government has taken such an important part.
The Commission hopes that the Old Patent Office Building may be preserved and that the proposed legislation will not be enacted into law.
Aii identical bill, H.R. 4841—84tli Congress, was discussed at the 9 June 1955 meeting. Having reported on H.R. 4687—84th Congress, the members of the Commission reaffirmed their opposition to the destruction of the Old Patent Office Building. A letter of 13 June 1955 to Congressman Buckley confirmed the members’ opposition which was justified from the history of its site, the architect, and the design.
The site of the Old Patent Office Building was established by the L’Enfant Plan of 1791 as a site for an important Federal building. This building, monumental in character, was designed by Robert Mills of South Carolina who was one of the first architects completely trained in America; he was also the architect of the U.S. Treasury Building, Old Post Office Department Building, the Washington Monument in 'Washington, and the Washington Monument in Baltimore. Of marble and sandstone, the Old Patent Office Building stands today as one of the best examples of the adaptation of the Greek Classic design to modern use.
(The above report notes the passing of Public Law 357—85th Congress on 28 March 1958 which provided for the transfer of this building to the Smithsonian Institution to house certain art collections of the Smithsonian Institution.)
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
The General Services Administration, engaged in a most extensive public building program during the period of this report, submitted plans for Federal Office Buildings Nos. 6, 8, and 10 in the Southwest and 9 in the Northwest for the advice and approval of the members of the Commission of Fine Arts. In discussing the progress of the designs with Mr. L. L. Hunter of Public Buildings Service, and architectural consultants for each of the buildings, the members of the Commission stressed that great effort should be made to give the Federal office buildings in the Southwest area a desirable uniformity of height, scale, and architectural detail to prevent as far as possible the appearance of a group of isolated modern office buildings.
page 18
This group of buildings should be inherently related architecturally to their surroundings, as their location was in an important section of the monumental plan of the National Capital. Complementing the group of buildings already constructed or contemplated for construction on the north side of the Mall, these buildings would require carefully studied landscaping and sculpture, owing to the important affect they would have on the appearance of this part of the city.
A special conference for additional study of the designs was arranged for the architects for the buildings, representatives of Public Buildings Service, and the architect members of the Commission of Fine Arts, and was held in New York on 13 August 1957. Further progress in the development of these designs, follows.
Federal Office Building No. 6: presenting the model for this building at 4th and C Streets SW., Mr. J. H. Stenhouse, of Faulkner, Kingsbury & Stenhouse, architects, explained the preliminary design of the building and its relationship to the surrounding buildings and streets in scale and form to the members of the Commission at the 23 May 1957 meeting. The members thought that landscaping would be of great importance to the design of this building, and they urged that part of the building funds be reserved for this purpose and for decoration of the building with sculpture and painting.
Revised designs incorporating recommendations for changes in the design were approved by the Commission at the 12 September 1957 meeting. The landscape plans, showing pools and sculpture for the sunken court and for the Maryland Avenue frontage, were approved at the 21 November 1957 meeting. The final plans, presented 26 June 1958, were approved at that time.
Federal Office Building No. 8: The plan for this building on a block-size site bounded by 2d, 3d, C and I) Streets SW designated to house laboratories and offices for the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, was presented by Mr. William J. Bain of Naramore, Bain, Brady & Johanson, architects, in a brochure showing a detailed plan for the first-floor interior of the building and photographs of the exterior. The members of the Commission approved the preliminary design at the 27 June 1957 meeting.
Suggesting that the end walls be in plain stone without windows, the members who attended a special conference in New York recommended separate canopies over each pair of entrance doors and sculpture on the pier between them. Drawings and a model for the building incorporating the changes recommended were presented to and approved by the members of the Commission at the 12 September 1957 meeting. The final perspectives and scale models of the building were approved on 26 June 1958 with the question again raised as to the propriety of housing a Biology Laboratory in this building on such an important location.
Federal Office Building No. 9: The proposed building for the use of the Civil Service Commission was planned to be located in the area bounded by 19th, E, and 20th Streets and Virginia Avenue NW. A preliminary design was presented at the 14 March 1957 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts by the architects, Mr. Norman Schlossman and Mr. Richard Bennett of Loebel, Schlossman & Bennett, and Mr. Gyo Obata of Hellmuth, Obata & Kassa-baum. Revised plans submitted at the 18 April 1957 meeting had provided more space for the courts by lengthening the wings as recommended by the Commission of Fine Arts. The members of the Commission, believing that the facade did not possess the special qualities that designs of buildings for governmental use should have, hoped the architects would develop a design having its own integrity, yet harmonizing in scale and detail with the architectural spirit of the city.
Three schemes for fenestration were presented at a special conference in New York. Preferring a scheme which included a window in each of the 5-foot modules, the members of the Commission recommended a restudy of the central entrance motif to give it more importance. Perspectives and scale models were discussed at the 26 June 1958 meeting of the Commission with further study suggested and a revised rendering desired by the members.
Federal Office Building No. 10: Preliminary drawings and model, consisting of two separate buildings designated as 10A and 10B, indicated the location in the Southwest area between 6th and 9th Streets on the east and west, respectfully, and between Independence
page 19
Avenue on the north and Maryland Avenue and C Street on the south. All phases of the problem—site, building size, number of people occupying the building, parking facilities, etc.— were explained to the members of the Commission of Fine Arts, at the 23 May 1957 meeting, by Mr. J. Roy Carroll, Jr., of Carroll, Grisdale & Van Alen, architects. Expressing regret that Building 10A was not being designed to house a specific agency of the Government, the members of the Commission stressed the paramount importance of the design for this building which would stand on the cross axis of the Mall opposite the National Archives Building. A design monumental in character would be required, since this building also would dominate the group of buildings on the south side of the Mall.
A scale model presented at the 26 June 1957 meeting appeared too overpowering in character for this area and, if constructed as proposed, the Commission thought that it would limit the opportunity for later development of the area. Recommending that the depth on the lot be reduced and that an architectural element such as a loggia be developed at ground level on Independence Avenue facing the Archives Building, the members of the Commission suggested that the plans be re-studied and resubmitted to the Commission at the September meeting.
Problems and difficulties involved in attempting to conform to these recommendations were explained by Mr. Carroll who presented revised drawings and models for the two buildings at the September meeting. Introduction of a loggia on the ground floor was considered an improvement, but great concern over the size and appropriateness to the site was expressed by the members regarding the general design of the larger and taller of the two buildings that constitute Federal Office Building No. 10. Recommendations that the building be reduced one story in height and set back on the lot were incorporated in the plans presented to the Commission on 17 October 1957 and approved, in general, with the understanding that further developments would be submitted at a larger scale.
Studying the relocation proposed by the Commission of Fine Arts, a subcommittee of the Coordinating Committee, National Capital Planning Commission, recommended that the
north facade of Building No. 10A be located 61 feet south of the present north building line. Having studied this proposal prior to the 19 December 1957 meeting, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts approved it at this meeting and informed the National Capital Planning Commission and Public Buildings Service of their action.
The plans presented 6 February 1958 by Mr. Carroll depicted the revised architectural treatment of joint buildings 10A and 10B. The choice of material to be used for the walls and window frames was discussed; alternative schemes contemplated the use of marble and bronze or limestone and aluminum. The great severity of the architectural treatment led the Commission to recommend using marble and bronze. The plans for the garage ramps and the scheme of fenestration were approved. No plans having been presented to provide suitable works of art and landscaping for the buildings, the members emphasized their belief that buildings of such severe and plain design required ample provision for sculpture, mosaics, mural paintings, and plantings; and that consideration of these features was important before the architectural design had progressed to completion.
The site model and final perspectives for these buildings were presented to and approved by the Commission of Fine Arts on 26 June 1958.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Presenting preliminary plans and drawings for the proposed Central Intelligence Agency headquarters building near Langley, Va., Mr. Max Abramovitz of Harrison & Abramovitz, architects, stated that the security required by the Agency prompted the architects to design a large, compact building to be erected in the center of a large wooded area. Having discussed the features of the plan and site, the members of the Commission, on 24 January 1957, gave their general approval of them. An intention to use sculpture in relation to architecture was noted with the hope that this feature would be carried to completion.
After viewing a model of the proposed building and discussing the design of the architectural features presented at the 19 December 1957 meeting, the members approved the design as submitted.
page 20
Central Intelligence Building, Langley, Va.
CENTRAL HEATING PLANT
An extension of four bays to the east end of the Central Heating Plant adjacent to the Agriculture Department was planned by the General Services Administration to house the air-conditioning equipment for buildings of the Department and for other buildings in the area. Continuation of the wall and window treatment of the existing building, designed in 1931 by Mr. Paul Cret, was indicated in the plans which were approved by the members of the Commission at the 21 November 1957 meeting.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Fort Lesley J. McNair: The designs for additional housing for officers and noncommissioned officers as presented at the 14 June and 13 September 1956 meetings of the Commission of Fine Arts introduced, in the opinion of
the members of the Commission, and unfortunate and unharmonious element into the monumental plan established for the growth of the War College. The plan followed a pattern developed in World War II and used in all Army posts. The members of the Commission hoped that some consideration could be given to developing a more suitable scheme for the units of this important establishment in the Nation’s Capital. No further submissions were received.
Walter Reed Medical Center: Drawings were presented on 13 September 1956 for construction of three new buildings. Mr. Anthony F. Ilarrer, architect, explained the drawings for each project. The members of the Commission of Fine Arts approved, as presented, each of the following:
(1)	Addition to Army Medical Service Graduate School.
(2)	Open mess for noncommissioned officers.
(3)	Chapel and chaplain’s office.
page 21
GALLAUDET COLLEGE
Library: Tentative plans for a building of brick with stone trim, two-story with basement were presented to the Commission of Fine Arts on 13 April 1955 by Mr. L. L. Hunter, Supervisory Architect, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administrations and Mr. William N. Denton, Jr., of Wilson & Denton, architects. Approval of the plans, in general, was given by the members of the Commission.
Girls'1 Dormitory: Plans and drawings were approved, by the Commission of Fine Arts as presented by Mr. Fred S. Poorman, Deputy Commissioner of Public Buildings, and Mr. William N. Denton, Jr., architect, on 5 April 1956.
Physical Education Building: Plans were approved as presented by Mr. John W. McLeod of McLeod & Ferrara, architects, at the 5 April 1956 meeting.
Science and Classroom Building: Drawings and plans which included two lecture halls and a laboratory were presented by Mr. William N. Denton, Jr., architect, to the commission on 14 March 1957. Believing the design to be out of character with the other buildings on the campus, the members recommended that the design be restudied and the revised drawings be submitted. During this report period, none was presented.
Hearing and Speech Clinic: Designs and sketches were presented by Mr. John W. McLeod of McLeod & Ferrara, architects, at the 14 March 1957 meeting. After reviewing
the design and discussing the details of the sketches, the members approved the plan for the one-story, circular structure.
Cafeteria and Service Building: After reviewing the preliminary drawings presented by Mr. William N. Denton, Jr., architect, on 19 December 1957, the members of the Commission expressed their satisfaction with the architect’s approach to the problem and expressed their appreciation for submitting the design at an early stage. More detailed plans were submitted and approved during the 22 May 1958 meeting.
Men’s Dormitory: The initial plans, indicating the direction the architectural design would take, were explained by Mr. James Porter of Irwin S. Porter & Sons, architects, to the members of the Commission of Fine Arts on 19 December 1957. Satisfied with the general concept of the design, the members recommended that the architect submit the developed plans when they were ready. The plans, revised to conform with the suggestions of the Commission members, were approved as submitted by Mr. Porter on 26 June 1958.
HOWARD UNIVERSITY
Auditorium of Fine Arts: A perspective model, an elevation and the preliminary plans for a proposed auditorium, designed by Mr. Hilyard R. Robinson, architect, were approved on 13 April 1955 by the Commission of Fine Arts. The members expressed the hope that the ends of the small theater would be
Physical Education Building, Gallaudet College.
page 22
Hearing and Speech Center, Gallaudet College.
rounded in order to give more character to the mass and to create a more spacious impression.
Men's Dormitory: After reviewing a plan for the proposed 6-story building, to accommodate 312 students, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts suggested substituting stainless steel for the limestone facing around the window. The design by Mr. Hilyard II. Robinson, architect, was approved, at the 5 May 1955 meeting, with the recommendation that the suggestion be incorporated.
ST. ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL
Designed to harmonize with the newer buildings of the hospital, the Maximum Security Building was planned to accommodate 378 patients, with treatment rooms, a gymnasium, an auditorium, and an outdoor recreation area surrounded by a 20-foot wall. Submitting the plans for this 5-story, red brick building to the Commission, Mr. William N. Denton, architect, explained the evolution of the plans with regard to the care, treatment, and supervision required by the patients. The plans, as presented, were approved at the 5 May 1955 meeting.
NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS INFORMATION
CENTER
Recognizing the need for an Information Center for Washington visitors, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts thought, however, that the location proposed for the center—Square 226 bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, 14th Street, E and 15th Streets NW., should be used as a park or as the site of an important memorial in the form of a fountain. Mr. Harry T. Thompson, Associate Superintendent, National Capita] Parks, presented his ideas for the Information Center building at this location during the 9 December 1955 meeting. For the reasons stated, the members could not approve the contemplated use of this land.
Voluntary Requests for Advice on Important Buildings
NEW GOVERNMENTAL CENTER FOR PAKISTAN
Information for planning a new governmental center for Pakistan was requested by Mr. Abdula Mom in, second secretary of the Embassy of Pakistan. Pursuant to a verbal request from the Department of State, Mr. Momin consulted the Commission of Fine Arts
602-604—64----3
page 23
on 11 January 1956, and received information on the evolution of the plan for the city of Washington. The members stressed the importance of selecting a firm of architects which could include a city planner, a landscape architect, and a sanitary engineer as part of the design team that would be essential for a well-developed plan. At this time Pakistan expects to employ American designers selected from lists obtained from the American Institute of Architects and American Institute of Planners.
A letter from Mr. A. Momin, expressing the Embassy’s appreciation for the advice given by the Commission of Fine Arts, follows:
Embassy of Pakistan,
Washington, D.C., January 17, 1956.
Dear Mr. Wilson : I am writing to convey my very sincere thanks to yon for kindly arranging for me to meet with the United States Fine Arts Commission informally in connection with the construction of the new Federal Capital of Pakistan. M e are indeed most grateful to the Chairman and members of the Commission for going out of their way to give us some invaluable advise on problems connected with the above project. I shall be grateful, if our sincere sense of appreciation could kindly be conveyed to the Chairman and members of the Commission.
Yours sincerely,
A. Momin, Second Secretary.
Mr. Linton R. Wilson,
Secretary, United States Fine Arts Commission, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.
BRITISH EMBASSY
NEW CHANCERY BUILDING
The Commission of Fine Arts always has been glad to advise when requested on designs
of embassy buildings that are to be erected by other governments in the District of Columbia. The Commission was honored when its advice was requested by Sir Edward Muir, Chief of the Ministry of Works in London, on designs for a proposed chancery building at the British Embassy on Massachusetts Avenue NW. during the 23 May 1957 meeting. Mr. Eric Bedford, Chief Architect of the Ministry of Works presented the design of the building which would provide office space for approximately 200 people.
In a letter of 24 May 1957, to Sir Edward Muir, Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission of Fine Arts stated that the members of the Commission hoped that the Commission’s advice would prove helpful in a restudy of the design which Mr. Bedford indicated he wished to make. Mr. Bedford replied, as follows:
British Embassy,
Ministry of Works, Washington, D.C., May 25,1957.
Dear Mr. Finley : In the absence of Sir Edward, who, as you know, is out of town for the weekend, I am just writing to thank you for the Commission's letter, and for the very helpful meeting on the 23d May.
As you say, it is intended that we shall restudy the southeast corner in the light of the Commission’s remarks, which I hope will lead to a satisfactory solution for both of us.
The date of your next meeting has been noted.
Yours sincerely,
Eric Bedford.
Mr. David E. Finley,
Chairman, The Commission of Fine Arts, Interior Department Building, Washington, D.C.
page 24
CHAPTER THREES
Statues, Monuments, and Memorials
WEST COAST MEMORIAL
DRAWINGS and a scale model of a proposed West Coast Memorial commemorating those who lost their lives in the Pacific Ocean during World War II were presented on 24 January 1957.
The proposed Memorial was designed by Mr. Hervey Parke Clark and Mr. John F. Beuttler, architects, and Mr. Jean de Marco, sculptor. Mr. John Harbeson, American Battle Monuments Commission, described the design as a paneled wall in light granite having the dedicatory inscription on the first two panels, the names of those who perished carved on the
next panels. A life-size figure of Columbia to be cast in bronze or carved in a darker shade of granite was portrayed as standing in front of the two blank panels at the end. The members approved the design, in general, but thought that the location of the sculptured figure of Columbia should be restudied. The revised design which was submitted 14 March 1957 was approved, in principle, by the members of the Commission who suggested that a model be made and submitted at a future meeting. During the period covered by this report, no further action was taken on this project.
West Coast Memorial, San Francisco, Calif.
page 25
EAST COAST MEMORIAL
Mr. John Harbeson, architectural adviser to the American Battle Monuments Commission, presented drawings for a proposed East Coast Memorial commemorating those who lost their lives in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II. The memorial to be erected in Battery Park, New York City, was designed by Mr. Will iam Gehron, architect, and Mr. Albino Manca, sculptor. Names of those being honored would be carved on eight large stone
tablets, four on each side of the sculptural feature—a large bronze eagle with wings upraised, grasping a wreath in its claws. An altar in front of the eagle would be carved with a dedicatory inscription. The members of the Commission on 14 March 1957 approved the general concept of the design, and recommended the scale and size of the name tablets and their relation to the eagle be restudied. The design modified as recommended by the Commission was subject to the approval of the Fine Arts Commission of New York City.
East Coast Memorial, Battery Parl^, New Yorl^ City.
page 26
Sculptural Feature of East Coast Memorial, Battery Parf{, New Yorl^ City.
page 27
AMERICAN MILITARY CEMETERY, HAMM, LUXEMBOURG
The design for the memorial as revised by Mr. Francis Keally, architect, retained the circular entrance of the original design. This main feature to the cemetery demanded a significant architectural structure as its central motif. For this reason, the chapel was located in a pivotal position. A stone pylon carved with campaign maps would stand on each side of the chapel but at a lower level. (General Patton was buried just south of the west pylon.) A large-scale eagle harmonizing with the campaign maps would contribute to the unification of the triangular composition
facing the graves in the cemetery proper. The east and west facades of the chapel would have an eagle of appropriate scale with a dedication inscribed in English on the east facade and in French on the west. French limestone facing was to be used for both the chapel and the pylon. Warm-colored marble was proposed for the interior walls of the chapel, with a marble mosaic floor and a glass mosaic ceiling. Luxembourg being the center of a great iron industry, wrought iron would be used appropriately for the entrance door to the chapel, for the railings, and in the design of the altar.
The members of the Commission of Fine Arts approved the concept of the design at the
American Military Cemetery, Hamm, Luxembourg.
page 28
10 February 1955 meeting and were of the opinion that details should be developed along the following lines:
(1)	The design of the central building should be stressed primarily as a monument and a memorial.
(2)	The chapel feature of this building should be expressed by an entrance, but with care not to detract from the prevailing memorial idea.
(3)	The profile of the central building should be simplified.
(4)	The lighting of the building might be more suitably accomplished through sources of light on the two sides, or over the entrance on the front.
The policy of the American Battle Monu-
ments Commission permitted the architect to choose the sculptor and artist whom he considered could develop the decorative work in harmony with his general conception of the design. Mr. Keally, architect for the memorial, submitted the names of Mr. Leo Friedlander and Mr. Walker Hancock, sculptors, and Mr. Allyn Cox, painter, to decorate the ceiling and to execute the battle maps. For members of the Commission, Mr. Harbeson reviewed the background and qualifications of each artist and presented the general scheme for the chapel and cemetery as modified by Mr. Keally to conform with the previous suggestions of the Commission. The members during the 5 May 1955 meeting approved the design and the artists selected by Mr. Keally.
Chapel in American Military Cemetery, Hamm, Luxembourg.
page 29
AMERICAN MILITARY CEMETERY, HONOLULU, HAWAII
To design the American Memorial Cemetery at Honolulu, Hawaii, the American Battle Monuments Commission selected the architectural firm of Weihe, Frick & Krause of San Francisco, Calif., from a list of qualified architects compiled by the Commission of Fine Arts at the request of Mr. Harbeson.
The preliminary drawings of the memorial to be erected on Punchbowl Crater, an extinct volcano near the city of Honolulu, portrayed a semicircular plan featuring a central pylon housing a small chapel between flanking walls where maps of battle areas would be depicted. The front of the pylon and chapel would face a series of garden courts descending a slope at regular intervals on each side. At the sides
of the garden courts would be stone walls inscribed with names of those who were lost in World War II and the Korean conflict. In approving the drawings, in general, the members suggested that further study be given to refining the form of the central pylon and to its sculptural aspects. Selection of a sculptor at this stage was recommended at this 5 April 1956 meeting.
Mr. Bruce Moore, sculptor, presenting a small-scale mode], explained his conception to place a large figure of Columbia in high relief on the front wall of the pylon at the center of the semicircle. The Commission, in approving the small-scale model during the 22 May 1958 meeting, suggested that low fountains be placed at each end of the semicircle. A larger scale model was to be submitted at a later date.
American Military Cemetery, Honolulu, Hawaii.
page 30
Columbia, sculptural feature on Chapel in American Military Cemetery, Honolulu, Hawaii.
602-604—64----4	page 31
TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
Previously suspended plans to select and return a World War II Unknown for burial in the Arlington National Cemetery near or beside the Unknown Soldier were resumed by the 12 August 1955 order of the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Charles E. Wilson. The order requested the Department of the Army to initiate the necessary action to implement Public Law 429—79th Congress. Although previous plans for alterations of the existing tomb to receive the second Unknown had been approved by the Commission of Fine Arts, it appeared advisable to reconsider the entire project after so great a lapse of time.
To this end an advisory committee was established to assist the Army in considering plans involving the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Personnel from official agencies and veterans’ organizations comprised the membership. A representative of the Commission of Fine Arts was requested, since any plans involving the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier would require the approval of the Commission.
As requested by the Honorable Charles C. Finucane, Acting Secretary of the Army, the Commission of Fine Arts selected a representative—Mr. Felix W. de Weldon, sculptor member—during the 8 December 1955 meeting. The opinion that the present Tomb without any changes could well serve as a memorial to those who lost their lives during any conflict was expressed by the members for Mr. de Weldon’s guidance.
Members of the Advisory Committee—Col. Roy A. Wall, Col. Ray T. Laux, Mr. Lorimer Rich, architect of the existing Tomb, Mr. Charles J. Dorman, architect, and Mr. Thomas Hudson Jones, sculptor of the existing Tomb, discussed with the Commission of Fine Arts at the 11 January 1956 meeting the following variant proposals:
1.	To make another tomb for the Unknown Soldier of World War II in the same area.
2.	To enlarge the present monument around the base.
3.	To leave the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier completely unchanged and increase the crypt underneath to provide room for two or more entombments, so as to be able to include an Unknown of the Korean Conflict.
After discussing the plans, it was agreed that Mr. Rich should prepare sketches which would show an enlargement of the crypt, with no changes being made to the original Tomb.
Sketches showing the enlargement of the crypt, in front of the present one, to permit the burial for Unknowns from World War II and Korean Conflict were shown by Mr. Lorimer Rich, at the 16 February 1956 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, with the explanation that the graves would be marked on the pavement by marble or granite slabs. The Commission approved the plans in principle and requested that a full-size model be prepared for the April meeting.
The site and the model for the two additional crypts were inspected by the members of the Commission during the 6 April 1956 meeting. Material and form were carefully considered. The opinion of the members was that the slabs should be flush with the pavement, and with only the dates inscribed upon them.
The revised and modified design for the memorial representing the Unknowns was presented by Mr. Lorimer Rich, architect, at the 12 September 1957 meeting. The modifications to the design, which was revised as requested by the Commission of Fine Arts, showed the slabs raised slightly above the pavement and framed with a border of green planting around each. The members of the Commission advised that the slabs be kept flush with the pavement; that a border of the same stone material as the slab should replace the planting; and to provide a moderate contrast, that a slightly different texture and color of the material should be used in the frame. The dates of the periods commemorated were to be the only distinguishing marks on the slabs.
After studying Mr. Rich’s revision to his design, which was resubmitted 21 November 1957, the members of the Commission advised the Army officials to select the area in front of the present Tomb as the site for the additional Unknowns. This area would be covered with a field of honed granite lighter in tone than the existing pavement. Two white marble slabs would be placed over the new Tombs in this granite field flush with the pavement and with an aisle between. No further submissions were made during the period of this report.
page 32
MEMORIAL TO GENERAL JOHN J. PERSHING
The American Battle Monuments Commission was authorized and directed by Public Law 461—84th Congress, approved 2 April 1956, to prepare plans and estimates for the erection of a suitable memorial to General John J. Pershing, and to report its recommendations as to site, design, and materials for submission to Congress.
Mr. John Harbeson, architect, of Harbeson, Hough, Livingston & Larson, and consultant to the American Battle Monuments Commission, described to members of the Commission of Fine Arts on 14 June 1956 a preliminary design for the memorial—comprising a figure of General Pershing silhouetted against a marble wall, decorated with stone maps and other historical data relating to campaigns in which the General had taken a commanding part.
The tentative site chosen for the memorial was the rectangle bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, 15th Street, E Street and 14th Street NW. The members of the Commission advised that, in their opinion, the site at Pennsylvania Avenue was not appropriate for a monument having primarily the character of a shrine; a more quiet location was required for such a design. This site should have a civic monument such as a large fountain, which would serve as a terminus of the grand vista connecting the White House Grounds and the Capitol. The Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission agreed, during a joint meeting on 14 June 1956, to defer action on locating the Pershing Memorial on this important site until an exploratory study could be made of the relative merits of various other proposals for the use of the same area.
A joint committee composed of representatives from the American Battle Monuments Commission, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts was formed to study the project and to make recommendations on the site. No conclusions were reached during this report period.
FIRST INFANTRY DIVISION MONUMENT
A plan for a proposed addition to the First Infantry Division Monument commemorating participation in World War II and the Korean conflict was presented by Col. William E. Shepherd, agent for the Society of the First Infan
try Division, and Mr. Cass Gilbert, Jr., architect, to the Commission of Fine Arts on 5 October 1955. The existing monument located at E Street NW., south of the Old State, War, and Navy Building, was unveiled October 4, 1924. The members of the Commission realized the difficulties involved in designing, within the fund available, an addition that would have the desired memorial significance and still preserve the monumentality and dignity of the existing memorial column. Plans and drawings for the proposed addition to be located west of the present monument, leaving the east side open for possible future expansion, were approved, in general, by the Commission on 9 November 1955. Bevised plans presented by Mr. Gilbert at the 6 April 1956 meeting of the Commission provided an addition with low granite walls providing spaces for bronze tablets containing names of members killed in action during World War II and the Korean conflict. This revised design was approved.
A proposed change to the approved design, presented to the Commission on 21 November 1957, involved the incising of a replica of the shoulder patch insignia of the First Infantry Division on a blank granite wall facing the 17th Street side of the memorial. After studying the proposed change, members of the Commission expressed their disapproval of adding the large replica of the insignia to the wall. Since the Society of the First Infantry Division desired to identify the monument further, the Commission suggested at the 22 May 1958 meeting one line of finely detailed and carved letters of classic type for the division’s name.
SECOND INFANTRY DIVISION MONUMENT
Preliminary plans for commemorating the action of the Second Infantry Division in conflicts since World War I were presented to the Commission on 5 October 1955 by Mr. Bal ph (). Lundgren, Chairman of the Memorial Committee. The committee wanted advice regarding making an addition which would harmonize with the existing Second Infantry Division Monument on the Ellipse facing Constitution Avenue NW. The members of the Commission recommended that Mr. Lundgren contact Mr. Otto Eggers, successor to Mr. John Bussell Pope, who was the architect for the original monument of which only the central part
page 33
Photo by Abbie Rowe. Courtesy National Park Service.
Marine Corps Memorial (Itvo Jima.}, Arlington, Va.
was built and dedicated. Drawings of the design, prepared in conformity with the original design, by Eggers & Higgins, architects, were submitted to the Commission on 17 February 1956. The Commission approved the design which showed low additions at each side of the existing monument.
MARINE CORPS MEMORIAL
The Marine Corps Memorial designed by Mr. Felix W. de Weldon, sculptor, was dedicated 10 November 1954. Both the design and the Landscape for the memorial had been approved by the Commission.
MARKER COMMEMORATING FIRST AIRPLANE FLIGHT ON ARMY POST, FORT MYER, VA.
The Secretary of the Army, Wilber M. Brucker, was authorized by Public Law 330— 85th Congress, approved 15 February 1958, to
provide for the erection of a suitable marker at Fort Myer, Va., to commemorate the first flight of an airplane on an Army installation on 3 September 1908; and for a suitable bronze plaque to Lt. Thomas E. Selfridge who lost his life on 17 September 1908 in the first airplane crash on an Army installation, Fort Myer. The date of the unveiling with appropriate military ceremonies was established by Public Law 330 as 3 September 1958, the 50th anniversary of the flight.
Mr. George R. Thompson, Chief of the Signal Corps, Historical Division, Department of the Army, furnished to the Commission of Fine Arts rough sketches and specifications of the design for consideration by the members at the 22 May 1958 meeting. The members of the Commission questioned whether the conception of a granite pulpit for the proposed monument, as indicated in the sketches, was
page 34
adequate to fulfill the memorial purpose of the legislation. The sketches and specifications, Jacking in detail, did not give an idea of the artistic quality of the proposed work, which was necessarily small because of lack of available funds for the purpose. For this reason, the members could not approve the drawings presented.
To meet the unveiling date established by Congress, the contract for the work had to be let before the proposed design could be prepared and adequately presented to the Commission. The Department of the Army requested the opportunity to have representatives present the proposed models for the marker and plaque designs to the Commission on 26 June 1958. Since the contract had been let from the original designs, the Commission of Fine Arts could only record its disapproval of the marker and could give no approval to the plaque which was in production at this time.
A NATIONAL MONUMENT SYMBOLIZING THE FIVE FREEDOMS
A National Monument Commission was authorized by the 83d Congress to procure plans and designs for a monument to the Nation symbolizing the ideals of democracy as embodied in the five freedoms. The law establishing this Commission follows:
Public Law 742—83d Congress
Chapter 1160—2d Session
H.R. 6455
AN ACT
To create a National Monument Commission, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby created a National Monument Commission. Said Commission shall be composed of four Senators from the Senate of the United States to be appointed by the Vice President of the United States, four Representatives of the House of Representatives of the United States to be appointed by the Speaker of that House, and four eminent citizens of the United States to be appointed by the President of the United States. The Commission shall be bipartisan and the terms of the first Commissioners shall be for 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, and subsequently shall be 4 years. Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by the respective designator who appointed the original member. Members shall serve until their respective successors are appointed. The President shall, at the time
of appointment, designate one of the members appointed by him to serve as Chairman.
Sec. 2. It shall be the function of said Commission to secure plans and designs for a useful monument to the Nation symbolizing to the United States and the world, the ideals of a democracy as embodied in the five freedoms, speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, sanctified by the Bill of Rights adopted by Congress in 1789 and later ratified by the States. Such plans shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts, and thereafter submitted to Congress for legislative authorization.
Sec. 3. Said monument shall be located on federally owned land within the George Washington Memorial Parkway adjoining the north boundary of Arlington National Cemetery west of Arlington Ridge Road and south of Arlington Boulevard on the heights overlooking the Potomac River. The monument, upon its completion, shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Approved August 31, 1954.
Until the 24 January 1957 meeting, no phase of the design for the Five Freedoms Memorial had been brought before the Commission of Fine Arts. At this meeting, Mr. Conrad Wirth, Director of the National Park Service, reported to the members of the Commission that Mr. Eric Gugler, architect, already had done extensive work on this project. After hearing Mr. Wirth’s description of the plans for the monument, the members of the Commission advised that the architectural form—height and size—of the proposed design was too great for the site; and that they were not convinced that any monument should be placed on this important site, the extension of the axis of the Mall across the river from the Lincoln Memorial.
Mr. E ric Gugler, architect, Mr. John Har-beson, consultant architect, and Mr. Harry T. Thompson, Associate Superintendent, National Capital Parks, presented, at the 14 March 1957 meeting, plans as developed by Mr. Gugler for the monument on the site designated by Congress— the Nevins tract adjoining Arlington National Cemetery. With some reluctance, the members approved, in principle, the general concept of the monument with the understanding that the designs would be submitted to the Commission as they were developed, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to preserve to the greatest extent the integrity of the Lincoln Memorial, which marked, in their opinion, the end of the Mall.
page 35
Viewing the models of the Five Freedoms Memorial in Mr. Gugler’s studio on the Hudson at Sneeden’s Landing, N. Y., on 18 November 1957, the architect members of the Commission reported at the 21 November 1957 meeting that the site was too small for a memorial of the magnitude planned. The National Monument Commission was asked to arrange a mockup of parts of the memorial so that the Commission of Fine Arts could judge it in relation to the site and its surroundings.
A model of the proposed Five Freedoms Memorial placed in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, was viewed on 2 February 1958 by members of the Commission, with Mr. Harry T. Thompson, Secretary, the National Monument Commission, and Mr. Faustin J. Solon, vice president, National Shrine Foundation. A letter from Chairman David E. Finley to the National Monument Commission, expressing the views of the members, is stated below:
13 February 1958.
Dear Mr. Olin : The members of the Commission of Fine Arts were glad to confer with Mr. Harry T. Thompson, Secretary of the National Monument Commission, and Mr. Faustin J. Solon, vice president, National Freedom Shrine Foundation, at their meeting on 6 February 1958, regarding the design for the Freedom Shrine which was authorized by Public Law 742, 83d Congress, for erection on the Nevius tract in Arlington, Va.
An amendment to the legislation for this project is currently pending in Congress, and Mr. Thompson was accordingly anxious to have the Commission approve the height and width dimensions of the design as presented in a small scale (100 feet equals 1 inch) model, which the Commission adjourned to view in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Seaton. We were reluctant to make a binding decision on such sketchy material, which was unsupported by drawings. The architect members of the Commission, who have visited the architect’s studio, and have conferred with him several times, were glad to have his recent written assurance that the height dimensions of the design could be reduced ; but the small model we saw in Mr. Seaton’s office did not seem to give an adequate presentation of these features.
On 9 January 1958, I was happy to testify before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in the course of a hearing on the above-noted amendment to the legislation, that the Commission had approved the general concept of the monument. We believe that this general approval is all that it is possible for us to give at the present time, and that it should suffice for legislative purposes.
In the many discussions that have taken place with the architect and Mr. Thompson about the design of this monument, the Commission has always expressed great concern as to the adequacy of this particular site for a monument of the magnitude shown in the renderings we have seen. You will recall that we were not consulted before the site was fixed by congressional action. In past years, the Commission has advocated that this land, which faces the Lincoln Memorial, be incorporated into Arlington National Cemetery, so that the rising tree-covered landscape could be retained without major architectural accents. However, this site having been authorized for the Freedom Shrine by the Congress, we have tried to work wtih the architect to arrive at a design that will be as harmonious in size and form as is possible on this site. Up to this time, we have experienced some reluctance on his part to modify the original design to a size and scale that we believe is demanded by the landscape and the proximity to the cemetery and the other adjacent memorials.
We hope, therefore, that the architect will now make some drawings which will definitely define the reduced monument in size and scale, so that we can study in more detail the design we are being asked to approve. We will be glad to continue to cooperate with you in this study.
For the Commission of Fine Arts.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman. Hon. Spencer T. Olin.
Chairman, National Monument Commission East Alton, III.
The revised design of the monument indicated a reduction in the height from 90 feet to 81 feet and in other measurements proportionately. At the meeting on 27 March 1957, Mr. Gilmore D. Clarke, landscape architect, presented the site plan and explained the roadway and parking areas. The closing of the present roadway in front of the Marine Memorial concerned the members. After a discussion of the revised architectural drawings and site plan, the members agreed further study was required of the plans and drawings in correlation to the Marine Memorial and the Netherlands Carillon.
As reported at the 22 May 1958 meeting, the legislation authorizing the Five Freedoms Memorial on the Nevius tract was defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives.
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS MEMORIAL TO HEROIC DEAD
The National Memorial Committee, under the chairmanship of Gen. Mark W. Clark, engaged Mr. Felix W. de Weldon to design a suit
page 36
able memorial to honor the memory of men and women who have given their lives in the service of the American National Red Cross. Air. Ellsworth Bunker, president of the American National Red Cross, requested the Commission of Fine Arts to consider the plans for the memorial. On 14 June 1956, Mr. deWeldon presented photographs of his sketch model which consisted of a group of four life-size figures—two men and a Red Cross woman administering to a wounded man. The statue in bronze would stand between the American National Red Cross Headquarters buildings opposite a monument completed 25 years ago honoring the service of Miss Jane Delano and other nurses of World War I, and would blend into the existing landscape on the north side of D Street NW. The project was approved in principle only, since formal drawings were not available at that time.
THE THEODORE ROOSEVELT ASSOCIATION—
THEODORE ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL
Preliminary drawings for a memorial to Theodore Roosevelt to be erected on Theodore Roosevelt Island were presented to the Commission of Fine Arts on 8 December 1955 and explained by Mr. Herman Hagedorn, director of the Theodore Roosevelt Association. The highest point of the island was envisaged as a memorial center composed of a backdrop of trees in a semicircle around an open space. A wall against the backdrop of trees would have carved on it seals of each State and Territory of the United States and famous quotations of Theodore Roosevelt. Benches on which visitors could rest and meditate would be in front of the wall and around the circle. A symbolic sculptural figure was suggested by the Theodore Roosevelt Association for inclusion as a central feature of the design. The general idea of the design had merit but would require more study, as stated by members of the Commission.
A developed design for the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial was submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts on 16 February 1956. Congressman Steven B. Derounian representing the Theodore Roosevelt Centennial Commission, Mr. Herman Hagedorn of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, and Mr. Harry T. Thompson of the National Park Service attended the meeting to sponsor the design.
Air. Eric Gugler, the architect chosen by the Centennial Commission, displayed drawings portraying his conception of the memorial, which had already been acted upon favorably by the association and Centennial Commission. Air. Paul Manship had been selected as sculptor. The memorial was conceived as a sanctuary in which a circle of granite tablets, bearing quotations from Theodore Roosevelt’s writings on the principles underlying a free society, would be the background for an armillary sphere in bronze symbolizing the free spirit.
The design was approved, in principle, as presented, with details to be submitted later to the Commission of Fine Arts.
ROBERT A. TAFT MEMORIAL
Preliminary drawings for the Robert A. Taft Memorial by Mr. Douglas AV. Orr, architect, commissioned by the Physical Memorial Subcommittee of the Robert A. Taft Alemo-rial Foundation, were presented at the 5 May 1955 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts. Several schemes were portrayed for shafts of varying design to house a carillon. The site selected for the 115-foot bell tower, established by Congress, was on the Capitol Grounds near Constitution Avenue between First Street and New Jersey Avenue. The members suggested that a fountain be substituted entirely for the carillon, which they felt was too high, or made a part of the setting for the shaft. The subcommittee desiring a carillon, the design for this structure with a pool at the base was submitted to and approved by the Commission on 5 October 1955.
LIGHTING FOR WASHINGTON MONUMENT
The advice of the Commission of Fine Aits for improving the lighting of the AVashington Monument was solicited by Mr. Harry T. Thompson and Mr. Robert C. Horne of the National Capital Parks staff. Stating that his office would like to light the monument “from the complete base to the complete top” with constant gradation, Mr. Thompson said that the lighting would be adjustable in candlepower, with the greatest intensity at the base and diminishing toward the top. The intention was to increase the amount of light to four times that being used and to have the lights
page 37
concealed below ground level in the daytime, and raised on hydraulic platforms above eye level at night. The matter was taken under study, with Mr. Elbert Peets representing the Commission.
Mr. Elbert Peets, landscape architect member of the Commission, reported later to the Commission on the experimental lighting as viewed from several vantage points, the farthest being approximately 2 miles from the monument. The lighting arranged for the experiment being too brilliant, the intensity would be reduced by 10 points. The illumination of the monument to this intensity was approved, at the 18 April 1957 meeting, with the understanding that further conferences should be held with officials of the National Capital Parks when necessary.
CARILLON TOWER
A Grift from the People of the N etherlands to the people of the United States of America
A symbol of friendship and gratitude felt throughout The Netherlands for American aid received during and after World War II was presented to the American people in the form of a carillon, the hallmark of Dutch artistic craftsmanship. Erection of a memorial carillon tower was authorized, as follows:
Public Law 628—83d Congress
Chapter 832—2d Session
H.J. Res. 356
JOINT RESOLUTION
Authorizing the erection of a memorial gift from the people of the Netherlands.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of the Netherlands is authorized to erect a memorial carillon tower and install carillon bells on public ground under the administration of the Secretary of the Interior, as a gift to the people of the United States from the people of the Netherlands in gratitude for the generosity of the people of the United States for the aid and assistance rendered to the people of the Netherlands in times of national emergency.
Sec. 2. The design and site of such memorial shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the United States shall be put to no expense in or by the erection of this memorial.
Sec. 3. The authority conferred pursuant to this, joint resolution shall lapse unless (1) the erection
of such memorial is commenced within 5 years after the date of the passage of this joint resolution, and (2) prior to its commencement funds are certified available in an amount sufficient, in the judgement of the Secretary of the Interior, to insure completion of the memorial.
Approved August 23, 1954.
A design for the tower as developed by Mr. Joost W. C. Boks, leading engineer in The Netherlands, was reviewed by the Commission of Fine Arts on 24 January 1957. Revisions of the design were approved as presented during the 27 March 1958 meeting of the Commission.
The design of the tower featured an open steel structure faced with steel plates enameled to simulate bronze. The tower would stand on a stone plaza, enclosed by low lava stone walls which might serve as benches. The steps leading to the plaza were guarded by two bronze lions designed by the Dutch sculptor, Paul Koning. The carillon itself was to be hung in the open framework of the structure so as to be visible to the public. Each bell was a gift from one of the provinces of Holland.
A site for the carillon tower was designated at Riggs Road and Marshall Drive, formerly called the Nevins tract, immediately north of Arlington National Cemetery, and south of the Marine Memorial.
BRONZE STATUE ON MARBLE PEDESTAL
A Gift of the People of Germany to the People of the United States
A life-size bronze statue, a gift from the German people symbolizing their gratitude for postwar aid, was presented to the people of the United States. In a ceremony on 25 January 1955 in the Natural History Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, President Eisenhower accepted the statue, which is called “Laboring Youth” from the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany, Heinz L. Krekeler.
The sculpture, by Herman Blumenthal, portrayed a young man kneeling with arms upraised and his hand held as if grasping a hammer. The marble pedestal bore the following inscription: “This statue was given by the German people as a token of gratitude for the great and generous assistance it received from the American people in the years after 1945.”
page 38
Photo by Abbie Rowe. Courtesy National Park Service.
Statue of Simon Bolivar, a gift from the Government of Venezuela to the Government of the United States.
page 39
DANKSPENDE
DES DEUTSCHEN VOLKES
1951
Assistance in finding an appropriate location for the gift was requested of the Commission of Fine Arts by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Until an appropriate location could be found, the statue was placed in custody with the National Collection of Fine Arts, Smithsonian Institution.
STATUE OF SIMON BOLIVAR
A Gift to the Government of the United States from the Government of Venezuela
A statue of the great South American liberator, Simon Bolivar, having been offered as a token of friendship to the Government of the United States from the Government of Venezuela, acceptance and erection of the gift was authorized in Public Law 109—84th Congress, as follows:
Public Law 109—84th Congress
Chapter 225—1st Session
H.J. Res. 232
JOINT RESOLUTION
Authorizing the erection of a memorial gift from the Government of Venezuela.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept, on behalf of the Government of the United States, a statue of the liberator, Simon Bolivar, to be erected on public grounds under the administration of the Secretary of the Interior, as a gift to the Government of the United States from the Government of Venezuela as a token of friendship.
Sec. 2. The design and site of such statute shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts, and the United States shall be put to no expense in or by the erection, of this statue.
Sec. 3. (a) The authority conferred pursuant to this joint resolution shall lapse unless the erection of such statue is commenced within five years after the date of the passage of this joint resolution.
(b) All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistencies.
Approved June 29, 1955.
Photographs of the heroic-size plaster model of the equestrian statue of Simon Bolivar by Mr. Felix W. de Weldon, sculptor, were reviewed and approved by the Commission of Fine Arts during the 9 November 1955 meeting.
The selection of the triangle bounded by Virginia Avenue, 18th and C Streets NW., adjacent to the Pan American Union Building and the Department of the Interior, was approved by the Commission as an appropriate location for the monument.
The landscape plans included a raised plaza for the statue, and a reflecting pool containing six jets symbolizing the six countries which Simon Bolivar liberated—Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Panama. These plans were approved by the Commission of Fine Arts during the 12 September 1957 meeting.
THE DISCUS THROWER
A Gift of the People of Italy to the People of the United States
A replica of an ancient Roman bronze copy of Myron’s “Discobolus” was presented to President Eisenhower, on 28 February 1956, at the White House, by Italy’s President Giovanni Gronchi as a gift to the people of the United States from the people of Italy in gratitude for the return of Italian masterpieces removed from Italy by the Germans during World War II.
In considering a site for the bronze statue during the 17 February 1956 meeting, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts thought the small triangular park directly east of the Department of State was the appropriate location.
Historical background information on the statute and the column was furnished to the Commission in a memorandum from the Italian Embassy in Washington, stating:
The city of Rome contributed to this donation by offering a pillar of African gray granite topped by a white marble capital. They were both found in the archeological excavations in Rome. The base of the statue is of Roman travertine and has on its front side an inscription in Roman capital characters which reads: “AL POPOLO DEGLI STATI UNITI L’ ITALIA.” On one side there is the date of the visit of the President of Italy to the United States of America.
page 40
CHAPTER F O U R ☆
Paintings and the Graphic Arts
FREER GALLERY OF ART
THE terms of the will of the late Charles L. Freer provide that all acquisitions by the Freer Gallery of Art be approved by the Commission of Fine Arts. All acquisitions proposed by the director, Mr. A. G. Wenley, have been reviewed and approved by the Commission during the period of this report. The Smithsonian Institution reports carry an account of the collections of the Freer Gallery.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF DESIGN
The report to the President entitled “Art and Government” by the Commission of Fine Arts in 1953 was endorsed by the National Academy of Design with recommendations which the academy believed would aid in the creation of better governmental buildings. (A resume of “Art and Government” is given in the Sixteenth Report of the Commission of Fine Arts.) The recommendations covering mural painting, postage stamps, and art exhibitions were:
Mural-Painting : In the decoration of Federal buildings erected outside of the District of Columbia in which mural-painting is to be used, a council consisting of two mural painters and the Chief Architect of the Public Buildings Service advise with respect to mural painters selected by architects to collaborate on each project. The two painters to serve on the council to be selected by the Chief Architect on advice from the Commission of Fine Arts.
Postage Stamps : In the design of postage stamps, a committee of three artists, competent in this field of design, together with the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing or his representative and a representative of the Office of the Postmaster General, serve as a council to advise the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
A list of the names of competent artists, from which three may be selected by the Chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to serve as professional members of the council, to be prepared by the Commission of Fine Arts.
Art Exhibitions : In International Art Exchange, the selection of works of art to be shown in such exhibitions be made by a committee appointed by the Director of the National Gallery of Art. The majority of the members of this committee shall be practicing artists in the field represented.
The Commission during the 10 November 1954 meeting accepted, in general, the academy’s recommendations and forwarded them to the Public Buildings Service of the General Services Administration, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the Post Office Department for approval. Mr. Lawrence Grant White, president of the National Academy of Design, was notified of the action taken.
A response from Mr. Fred S. Poorman, Acting Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service, indicated that the present procedure of close collaboration with the Commission of Fine Arts in the selection of mural painters had produced excellent results and recommended continuing this procedure.
Mr. II. J. Holtzclaw, Associate Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, answered that the Bureau was in accord with the academy’s recommendations relative to the selection of artists to serve as advisers to the Bureau in the design of stamps. The reply by Mr. Albert J. Robertson, Assistant Postmaster General, stated that the recommendations of the academy were entirely satisfactory to the Post Office Department.
Concerning the selection of works of art to be shown abroad, Chairman David E. Finley, who was then the Director of the National Gallery of Art, responded that the U.S. Information
page 41
Agency was authorized to select committees for international exhibitions of works of art financed by this Government. Under these circumstances, this function should not be carried on by the Director of the National Gallery of Art.
POSTAGE STAMP COMPETITION
The desire of the Post Office Department to improve the design of postage stamps brought Mr. Robert E. Fellers, Director, Division of Philately, Post Office Department, to seek the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts during the 10 November 1954 meeting. Background information on the production of stamps was furnished; problems encountered in finding designs were stated. Outside advice from artists who could be reached easily for consultation was considered as a help in producing-stamps of the highest quality.
The Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts, Mr. David E. Finley, suggested that the National Academy of Design of New York City might be willing to establish a committee to advise the Post Office Department and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on stamp designs. Informing Mr. Lawrence G. White, President of the National Academy of Design, Chairman Finley stated that the Post Office Department desired to establish a committee of three qualified artists selected by the Academy to advise the Post Office Department and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on stamp designs. The National Academy of Design accordingly appointed the following artists to the committee: Mr. Norman Kent, N.A.; Mr. Fritz Eichenberg, N.A.; Mr. Anthony de Francisci, N.A.; alternates: Mr. Thomas Cleland; Mr. Paul Manship, N.A.; and Mr. ^Edward A. Wilson, A.N.A. These artists agreed to serve without remuneration other than actual expenses that might be involved.
Preliminary arrangements were made to have representatives of the Post Office Department and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing meet with the committee in New York City on weekends or whenever convenient to the committee. The Commission of Fine Arts would maintain supervisory control over arrangements for conferences and would
receive the results of the conferences for review.
At the request of Mr. White, president of the Academy of Design, a conference to discuss the improvement of stamp designs was held, during the 8 June 1955 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, with the Honorable Albert J. Robertson, Assistant Postmaster General, Mr. Robert E. Fellers of the Post Office Department, and Mr. Norman Kent, selected by the National Academy of Design as a member of the Advisory Committee on Stamps.
Methods and procedures were discussed to insure better designs—designs that would be agreeable to the Post Office Department, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the new Advisory Committee of the National Academy of Design. The following method of operation was developed:
1.	The Post Office Department would furnish the advisory committee with a list of proposed stamps and their subjects, and would provide technical specifications for future guidance in making recommendations.
2.	The four existing sizes of stamps would continue to be used for the present time.
3.	The use of different colors on the same stamp, although the Post Office Department did not object to the idea, would not be initiated at this time since the engravers had found no color process that would enable them to produce the stamps required.
4.	The advisory committee would act as a jury for the preliminary sketches and final design of stamps.
The procedures developed were:
1.	The advisory committee would submit a list (classified) of qualified artists to the Commission of Fine Arts for transmission to the Post Office Department.
2.	The advisory committee would initiate discussions with the artist, who had been selected by the Post Office Department from this list, regarding the conception of the design.
3.	The resulting preliminary sketch and final design would be approved by the advisory committee and submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts for action.
4.	The Commission of Fine Arts would submit the final design to the Postmaster General for final approval.
page 42
The advisory committee suggested that the artist be paid a minimum fee of $500. It was not decided whether to pay all artists who participated or only those whose designs were accepted.
The National Academy of Design desired that the work of the advisory committee on Stamp Design, appointed by the academy, be given official status by the Post Office Department. If official status by the Post Office Department was not feasible, the academy thought the advisory committee should be recognized by the Commission of Fine Arts. These views of the academy were discussed by the Commission during the 9 November 1955 meeting. The members concluded that the Commission of Fine Arts had no authority to give official status to this advisory committee. Chairman Finley, in a letter to Mr. Lawrence G. White, president of the National Academy of Design, explained that on the basis of the information he had received—
It does not seem possible . . . for the Post Office Department to work out an official status for your council. If such a status were given to one organization, it would probably arouse demands on the part of other organizations for similar treatment. The artists, who design the stamp, do get such recognition in news releases for their creative work in designing the stamps. This, after all, is the important thing; and the other important element in the situation is the production of U.S. postage stamps of good quality by competent artists. Mr. Arno, the designer of the Ticonderoga stamp, and the Advisory
Council on Stamps of the National Academy of Design both received recognition in the news releases for their parts in the design of the stamp. I hope there will be more work of this kind available for artists and that the academy can be the instrument for recommending qualified artists for this purpose.
I would like to express my own thanks to you and the academy for the splendid cooperation which you are giving to the Post Office Department. It will, I feel sure, result in great improvement in our postage stamps.
Mr. Robertson of the Post Office Department reported to the Commission of Fine Arts that he and Mr. White, president of the National Academy of Design, had agreed to disband the advisory committee, and at the 9 December 1955 meeting, the members learned that the design of stamps had again been given to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing designers.
SPECIAL STAMP COMMEMORATING THE HONORABLE ANDREW W. MELLON
A special stamp in honor of Andrew W. Mellon, former Secretary of the Treasury, Ambassador to England, and donor of the National Gallery of Art, was authorized for release on 20 December 1955, the 100th anniversary of his birth. Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission of Fine Arts informed the members during the 9 November 1955 meeting that he had advised Assistant Postmaster General Albert J. Robertson, that the stamp should be engraved from the portrait of Mr. Mellon by Oswald Birley.
page 43
CHAPTER F I V E ☆
Coins, Medals, and Insignia
DR. JONAS E. SALK MEDAL
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ANNIVERSARY MEDAL
COMMENTS of the Commission of Fine Arts were requested by Mr. William II. Brett, Director of the Mint, Department of the Treasury, upon the artistic merits of the designs for the Dr. Jonas E. Salk and Benjamin Franklin Anniversary Medals. The 84th Congress having authorized these medals—Public Law 259 and Public Law 297— the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis and the Franklin Foundation in Philadelphia contributed funds so that the Mint could immediately produce the medals in order to have them available for presentation during the March of Dimes Campaign and the 250th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin in January.
Photographs of the models were furnished to the Commission with a letter of 15 December 1955 from Mr. Brett which stated that to meet the January dates they were now in the process of making these medals. The Dr. Jonas E. Salk models were prepared by Mr. Gilroy Roberts, Chief Sculptor and Engraver of the Mint, and the Benjamin Franklin Medal, by Laura Gardin Fraser. Since the designs were not presented before the production was started, Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission replied on 22 December 1955 :
Dear Mr. Brett : I have discussed with Mr. Felix W. de Weldon, the sculptor member of the Commission of Fine Arts, your letter of 15 December 1955, in which you requested comment on photographs of models of medals that are to be presented to Dr. Jonas E. Salk, and to various institutions in honor of the 250th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin.
It is noted that both medals are already in process of production, and that the costs of production are being underwritten by private organizations. We assume that these respective organizations have already approved the designs of the medals, which
appear, in general, to be satisfactory. If the designs had been submitted to us at an earlier date, I feel sure that the Commission would have wished to make some recommendation, particularly as to the lettering on both medals. Under the circumstances, however, since the medals are now in production, the Commission will not make any comments.
We hope in the future, designs will be submitted in time for proper consideration by the Commission. Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
Hon. W. H. Brett, Director of the Mint, Treasury Department, Washington, D.C.
SEAL FOR PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON YOUTH FITNESS
Drawings of the proposed seal for the President’s Council on Youth Fitness were presented by Lt. Col. James S. Cook, Jr., Head of the Heraldic Branch, Office of the Quartermaster General, for approval of the Commission of Fine Arts during the 27 June 1957 meeting. This proposed official seal, approximately 2 inches in diameter when completed, appeared to the members of the Commission to be overcrowded with symbolic elements which would be illegible when reduced to the specified size. For this reason, members of the Commission disapproved the design and asked that the pattern be simplified.
Before a revised design of the seal could be presented, a printed insignia for a brochure was desired by Mr. Shane MacCarthy, Executive Director of the Council, to be used for a West Point conference on 19 September 1957. Mr. Thomas Hudson Jones prepared the model for presentation to the Commission, which approved the interim design.
After considerable study, a revised sketch of the seal for letterheads and other papers of the Council on Youth Fitness was considered, but members of the Commission were of the
page 45
opinion that it was impossible to combine all the desired elements into a satisfactory design for a legible seal. Mr. Felix W. de Weldon, sculptor member of the Commission, was authorized by the other members on 22 May 1958 to work with the artist, Mr. Thomas Hudson Jones, in an effort to get a more significant design. With authority delegated to him by the Commission to act on this matter, Mr. de Weldon approved a revised design.
AMERICAN VETERANS PLAQUE
The American Veterans of Work! War II requested that a plaque, commemorating their gift of a carillon, be placed on the interior wall of the Arlington Amphitheater. At the 6 February 1958 meeting of the Commission, the members stated that they would not object to such a tablet, provided the design, material— marble was preferred—and placement of the plaque could be worked out satisfactorily. Although the final design and layout of the lettering was not furnished before the meeting-on 22 May 1958, members of the Commission felt the design had been sufficiently developed that they could approve it.
LIVING VETERANS OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES MEDAL
In accordance with Public Law 730—84th Congress, a medal was to be presented to living veterans of the War Between the States. The medal carrying the superimposed profile likenesses of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Gen. Robert E. Lee on the obverse and the shields of the North and the South on the reverse was received by the Commission of Fine Arts on 28 August 1956 from Mr. Leland Howard, Director of the Mint. Before the September 13th meeting of the Commission, the models were withdrawn to meet an October 1st production schedule. Photographs had been made of the models and were presented for review by members of the Commission in accordance with Executive Order 3524.
At the request of the members, Chairman Finley expressed their views on the design in a 13 September 1956 letter to Mr. Howard containing the following paragraph:
They agreed that they could not approve the design as presented. It was their opinion that neither of the profile heads of the two Generals was more than a fair likeness, and it seemed to them to be
unwise practically and aesthetically to overlap them. If used, each General should be separate, just as the two shields on the other side are separate. The lettering on both sides is poorly spaced, and some of the individual letters, especially the letter (s), are poor in form.
U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY HONOR AWARD MEDALS
Drawings for three U.S. Information Agency honor award medals were presented to the Commission of Fine Arts at the 8 June 1955 meeting. The three medals would have identical designs on the obverse and on the reverse, the specific award would be cited. Gold would be used for the Distinguished Service Medals; silver for Superior Service; and bronze for Meritorious Service. The Commission approved the design.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ADMINISTRATION SERVICE AWARD MEDALS
Mr. Joseph Nebesky, Graphic Branch, International Cooperation Administration, presented the designs of medals of award for 10, 20, and 30 years of service to the Commission of Fine Arts on 10 May 1956. The designs appeared to members of the Commission to lack sufficient artistic merit. Although the agency was pressed for time, the Commission recommended that assistance in obtaining the best possible design be requested from the Heraldic Branch, Office of the Quartermaster General, Department of the Army, and resubmitted at the June meeting. No other designs were submitted for approval during the period of this report.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIPLOMATIC COURIER SERVICE MEDAL
A graphic design of a proposed U.S. Diplomatic Courier Service Medal, planned as a lapel pin, was approved on 18 April 1957 by the Commission of Fine Arts with the recommendation that the lettering should read “U.S.A.” Lt. Col. James S. Cook, Jr., of the Heraldic Branch, Department of the Army, presented revised drawings prepared by Mr. Thomas H. Jones, sculptor, as the Commission had recommended to the Department of State. A design, previously submitted on 10 May 1956, had not been approved because it contained too many details, a map in the center being so small as to be practically meaningless.
page 46
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DISTINGUISHED
SERVICE AND OUTSTANDING SERVICE MEDALS
The members of the Commission found that extensive specifications of the Atomic Energy Commission for the Distinguished Service and Outstanding Service Medals made an artistic synthesis difficult to achieve. The finely executed design of the obverse was overburdened with detail that confused the composition and would largely be lost when reduced to approximately 2% inches in diameter. The members of the Commission, after studying the model during the 10 May 1956 meeting, suggested that only a round globe and the atomic diagram surrounding it be retained and that all the other symbolic material be deleted. The reverse of the medal, while crowded with lettering for the specific medal, was satisfactory.
Mr. Charles W. lumber, architect-engineer of the Atomic Energy Commission, with Lt. Col. James S. Cook, Jr., Chief, Mr. Arthur E. DuBois, Technical Director, and Mr. Thomas Hudson Jones, sculptor, of the Heraldic Branch of the Department of the Army, presented a revised design at the 14 June 1956 meeting of the Commission. Most of the suggestions made by the Commission of Fine Arts at the previous meeting were embodied in this model. All the symbolic material had not been deleted. The representation of the missile had been retained, as the Atomic Energy officials believed it to be the distinctive feature of their medal. The advisability of including such a weapon was questioned by members of the Commission of Fine Arts. Other changes in the design having been made as recommended by the Commission, the members decided to approve the medal as it was presented.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDALS
Various designs for Department of Defense medals, prepared by Mr. Thomas H. Jones, sculptor, for the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts, were presented during the period covered by this report by Lt. CoL James S. Cook, Jr., Chief of Heraldic Branch, Office of the Quartermaster General, Department of the Army, and/or Mr. Arthur E. DuBois, Technical Director of that office. The medals were for the following awards:
Distinguished Civilian Service Award: As
explained to members of the Commission at the 8 June 1955 meeting, the medals would be of gold-filled bronze, 1^4 inches from side to side. On the obverse would be a hand holding 3 arrows, symbolic of the 3 services, on a background of 13 incised stars representing the Thirteen Original Colonies which would be encircled by the inscription “Department of Defense.” On the reverse, the incised inscription “Awarded to___________for Distinguished
Civilian Service” would be encircled by a wreath in relief. The Commission approved the design as presented.
Meritorious Civilian Service Award: The medal would be of silver, with the obverse having the seal of the Department of Defense as the central design and the reverse having the inscription “Awarded to-----------for Meri-
torious Civilian Service.” Approval was granted by the Commission on 17 February 1956.
Distinguished Civilian Service Award— Navy: On the obverse, a motif from the seal of the Department of the Navy—the eagle and anchor—would be the central design surrounded by “Department of the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service” in gold letters on a blue background. The Commission approved the design on 17 February 1956.
Distinguished Public Service Award: The medal of bronze would have on the obverse the seal of the Department of Defense as the central motif surrounded by a wreath common to civilian awards. “To------------for Distin-
guished Public Service to the Department of Defense” would be on the reverse. Members of the Commission approved the design during the 19 November 1956 meeting. This medal would be given with a certificate signed by the Secretary of Defense to civilians who would have performed especially meritorious service to the Department of Defense as a whole, to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or to more than one of the military establishments. It was stipulated that the nominee would not derive his principle livelihood from Government employment; would have served at a considerable personal sacrifice and inconvenience motivated by patriotism, good citizenship, and a sense of public responsibility; and would have severed all commercial connections from the Department of Defense.
page 47
Department of Defense Medals

Obverse.	Reverse.
Distinguished Civilian Service.
Meritorious Civilian Service.
Obverse. Reverse is blank*-
Distinguished Civilian Service (Navy)
page 48
Department of Defense Medals—Continued
Obverse.
Reverse.
Distinguished Public Service.
Obverse.
Reverse.
Distinguished Civilian Service (Non-Civil Service}—Army
page 49
Distinguished Civilian Service Medal (Non-Civil Service)—Army: On the obverse of the medal of gold finish, the central motif incorporated a disk with a wreath on the lower half of the rim denoting nonmilitary service. An equilateral triangle on the disk would be symbolical of the civilian. The eagle from the Great Seal of the United States would be displayed on the triangle. The reverse would be inscribed “Awarded to________for Distin-
guished Civilian Service to the United States Army (date).” It was understood that the medal would be given for service prior to the date of the conclusion of World War II. The Commission approved the design at the 10 October 1956 meeting.
Air Force Commendation Medal: Photographs of three proposed designs for an Air Force Commendation Medal were shown to the members of the Commission of Fine Arts at the 19 December 1957 meeting. The members considered none of the designs to have sufficient merit for such a medal and recommended that a hexagonal design be developed further, giving the Air Force coat of arms more prominence. A sketch of this design, submitted to the Commission on 6 February 1958, was not considered satisfactory by the members, who then recommended that the original design for such a medal, which had previously been approved by the Commission and by the three branches of the armed services, be used as the Army and Navy Departments were so
doing. No other designs were submitted during this report period.
Captain Robert Dexter Conrad Award: Preliminary sketches of the medal for the Robert Dexter Conrad Award for Scientific Achievement, U.S. Navy, were presented to the Commission of Fine Arts at the 17 October 1957 meeting. The design portrayed the bust of Captain Conrad in the uniform and cap of a naval officer. An anchor and nameplate of the recipient were shown on the reverse. The members of the Commission believed that the character of Captain Conrad could be portrayed more clearly if only the head and neck were depicted.
Revised plaster models of the medal were presented at the 6 February 1958 meeting. The members of the Commission agreed that the modeling of the effigy still lacked definition and that the features were noticeably strange in size and placement. The lettering also seemed to lack refinement in the shapes and widths. On the reverse, the nameplate appeared to be too high in relief, and the lines of the flukes and point of the anchor too involved. Further study was recommended.
Plaster casts of both obverse and reverse, modified as suggested by members of the Commission, were resubmitted for comments and approval of the Commission on 27 March 1958. The design of the medal was approved at this meeting.
page 50
CHAPTER S I X ☆
District of Columbia Government and Redevelopment Land Agency
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS-----
SCHOOLS
Il SALLJJ Elementary School, Riggs Road and 6th Street NE.: Plans for a 29-
J room, three-story elementary school building showing a design of brick with procelain enamel spandrels, were approved on 5 May 1955. Mr. Rhees Burket was the architect.
Garfield Elementary School {Turner Elementary School), 25th Street and Alabama Avenue SE.: Preliminary plans as developed by R. A. Wilgoos and D. G. Chase, architects, for an addition to Garfield Elementary School were considered satisfactory and approved at the 9 November 1955 meeting of the Commission.
Anacostia Senior High School Addition, 16th and R Streets SE.: Receiving preliminary plans and drawings for an addition to house mainly the physical education facilities, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts approved the proposed design in general on 9 December 1955 with a suggestion for changes in the wall treatment of the west facade. The plans were drawn by Ronald Senseman, architect.
Eliot Junior High School, 19th Street and Constitution Avenue NE.: Approving preliminary plans and drawings as developed by McLeod & Ferrara, architects, for the Eliot Junior High School on 9 December 1955, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts urged that special attention would need to be given in the execution of the design to the use of materials.
School for Crippled Children {C. Melvin Sharpe Health School), 13th and Upshur Streets NW.: Reviewing a perspective and drawings of the building, as developed by Chatelain, Gauger & Nolan, architects, the members of the Commission noted that this design for a one-story, flat-roofed brick building had several interior rooms with no outside lighting. A more open plan, if space permitted, was suggested at the 14 June 1956 meeting. No further submissions were received during the period of this report.
Hendley Elementary School, 6th and Chesapeake Streets SE.: The members of the Commission of Fine Arts approved the design as developed by Murphy & Locraft, architects, for this proposed elementary school at the 24 January 1957 meeting and stated that the realization of a good building from this design was dependent upon well-studied details and careful selection of materials.
LaSalle Elementary School, Riggs Road and 6th Street NE.
page 51
LIBRARIES
Woodbridge Branch Public Library, 18th Street and Rhode Island Avenue NE.: Preliminary drawings for this library were presented by Mr. Merrel A. Coe, Supervising Architect for the District of Columbia, at the 15 March 1955 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts. The members suggested several changes in the facade which would give more distinction to the structure. Simplification of the design of the window treatment on the rear and 18th Street facades, as suggested by Mr. Leon Chatelain, Jr., the architect of the building, was endorsed by the members at the 13 April 1955 meeting. The suggestion was also made that the design of the penthouse and the elevator shaft be restudied. Realizing the restrictions imposed on the designer by operating and financial limitations, the members emphasized that more effort should be made to make small buildings of this type as attractive in mass and as inviting in detail as possible. No approval was given at this meeting. Final drawings were not submitted during this report period.
FIRE DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS
Engine Company No. 32 and Rescue Squad No. 3, 24th and Irving Streets SE.: Reviewing the preliminary plans and drawings for this project as designed by Deigert & Yerkes, architects, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts expressed the opinion that the success of the design would depend upon careful cooperation with the architects in order to
Engine Company No. 23 and Rescue Squad No. 3, 24th and Irving Streets SE.
achieve a careful use of color and materials. The plans, in general, were approved at the 9 December 1955 meeting.
POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS
Police Station Precinct No. 7, 3128 Volta Place A IF.: A design for the proposed alterations to the front facade of Police Precinct No. 7 was approved as presented at the 17 October 1957 meeting. The plans were also referred to the Board of Architectural Consultants for Georgetown for information and review on 22 October 1957.
Detention House, North Capitol Street Between K and L Street AIF.: A design of a building for the Women’s Bureau, Metropolitan Police Department, developed by Mr. A. Hamilton Wilson, architect of Wilson & Denton, was reviewed on 13 April 1955 by the members of the Commission who suggested eliminating the horizontal band framing the windows. Drawings of the design revised as suggested by the members were approved 5 May 1955.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GENERAL HOSPITAL ADDITIONS
Plans for two new additions to the District of Columbia General Hospital were approved at the 17 September 1954 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts. A 300-bed Tuberculosis Building for ambulatory patients and a Psychiatric Building for 250 patients were described by Mr. Merrel A. Coe, District of Columbia Supervising Architect.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING ADDITION
The problem of designing a new West Administration Building, balancing the Municipal Building at 6th and C Streets NW., was recognized to be complicated by the need for more space than was contemplated when the original scheme was made 30 years ago for the Civic Center and two symmetrical buildings to house the District government. A balanced composition rather than a strictly symmetrical one was the general plan suggested by the members at the 13 September 1956 meeting. No further conference on this project was held during this report period.
page 52
NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK
A proposed Public Rest Room Building in the National Zoological Park was considered from the preliminary sketches submitted at the 10 November 1954 meeting. Approval was given for the building, a one-story structure.
YOUTH CORRECTION CENTER
Impressed by the design which avoided a prisonlike appearance in the buildings for the proposed Youth Correction Center near Lorton, Va., the members of the Commission thought the entrances to the V-shaped dormitory buildings pleasantly and imaginatively designed— the light, open, and colorful construction might be the entrance to the recreation hall of a summer camp. The designer, Mills, Petticord & Mills and Associates, had solved the difficulties presented by the necessity of placing buildings on a very irregular terrain. Pleased with these preliminary plans presented on 8 September 1955 by Mr. Merrel A. Coe, District of Columbia Supervising Architect, the members anticipated seeing the finished model. None was presented during this report period.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC-----
LIGHTING STANDARDS
Samples of tall lighting standards for mer-cury-vapor lamps erected along the east side of 14th Street NW., south of the District Building, and planned to replace all lighting standards on the streets of Washington, were inspected on T September and 6 October 1955 by the Commission of Fine Arts accompanied by Mr. J. N. Robertson, Director of Department of Highways and Traffic of the District of Columbia, and Mr. H. A. Friede, electrical engineer of the same department. Concerned with the effects on the monumental areas of Washington, the members decided that they could not approve any of the samples. The following comments of the members of the Commission concerning lamp posts were included in a letter of 20 October 1955 to Mr. Robertson:
Base : The base should be as low and inconspicuous as possible. The four nob-shaped covers (used to give access to the anchor bolts) should be kept as simple as possible, and the molded ornamentation on these covers should be omitted.
Pole: The height of the pole is acceptable. In design, the fluted or octagonal cross-section is preferred to the round plain section. In material, steel and aluminum are equally acceptable, but it is understood that aluminum discolors in time.
Luminaire Bracket : The curved form of this feature is not, in their opinion, an effective design for urban use. The shape has no relation to that of the pole, and the curve tends to attract undue attention to itself. A straight horizontal bracket would be more harmonious with the vertical and horizontal lines that prevail in the city streets.
Luminaire : The shiny outer surface of the upper part of the lamp is a distracting element in the design.
The curved brace (should be omitted if it is not structurally necessary. If necessary, the ends of the brace should lie flat, without the little upward curve that is used in the standards we inspected. The brace, if used, should have a well-rounded curve and the point at which it is fixed to the bracket, measured from the pole, should be about two-thirds of the length of the bracket.
On the whole, the members thought that the light standards on the roadways to the south of the Washington Monument were more satisfactory in design than the samples set up opposite the Commerce Department Building.
Drawings of two designs, both pendant type having fluted pole with luminaire bracket at an angle to it, were presented by officials of the Highway Department at the 8 December 1955 meeting at which time the members expressed a preference for steel poles. Only the design with the 6-foot luminaire bracket extended approximately at a right angle to the pole could be approved and approved only for use on outlying streets.
After an inspection of the proposed street lamps on 16 February 1956, the numbers’ views were expressed, as follows:
29 February 1956.
Dear Mr. Robertson : After our sidewalk conference and inspection of proposed street lamps, on 16 February, the members of the Commission gave the matter extended consideration. We were unanimous in not liking any of the demonstration standards for use within the city of Washington. We also agreed that we would prefer that the existing standards be retained. If the present lighting is insufficient on Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, we would like to see this shortcoming remedied by increasing the power of the present lamps or by adopting more modern lamps to the existing posts.
We like the appearance of the present lighting system. It is a unified, citywide system, with similar types of standards and lamps for use in the different classes of streets. Although quite simple in design, they were intended to harmonize with the architecture of our public buildings and national
page 53
monuments. Thus the lighting system carries throughout the city an expression of Federal dignity and unity, which is a very important asset to the city and one that would lose much of its value if some important streets were lighted with incongruous equipment. Constitution Avenue, for example, is made very impressive at night, and even in daylight, by its dignified, and closely spaced lighting standards. Their design and height are perfectly proportioned to the design and height of the monumental buildings along the avenue and harmonize also with the trees. If much higher standards were used, spaced at wider intervals, and of a design foreign to the architectural style of the buildings, much of the harmony and dignified scale of the avenue would be lost.
We do not at all mean to imply that the new vapor lamp and high standards of modern design are necessarily lacking in artistic merit. Our criticism refers only to their use in the special conditions of the city of Washington. If improved lamps can be employed in harmony with the present system, we shall be glad to consider their use. We admire the way in which you have used colored vapor lights on high standards at the point where the Baltimore-Washington Parkway enters the city. These lights form a dramatic deceleration zone, marking the change from a high-speed freeway to the mixed traffic of urban streets. They are as appropriate to that function as the present street lights of Washington are appropriate to their own special function.
For the Commission of Fine Arts : Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
Mr. J. N. Robertson,
Director, Department of Highways, District of Columbia Government, Washington, D.C.
After discussing the continuation of the installation of new light standards as reported in the newspapers, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts, at the 5 April 1956 meeting, thought their approval of a standard for the outlying areas only had been misunderstood by the District Highway officials. To clarify the approval and to reiterate the position of the Commission, Chairman David E. Finley forwarded, on 22 May 1956, a letter to General Lane, Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia, stating in part:
We have, as you know, inspected the various types of standards that were temporarily erected on 14th Street in the vicinity of the Great Plaza. At the request of Mr. Friede, at a meeting on 16 February 1956, the members of the Commission expressed a preference for a sketch of a highway-type lighting standard with a right-angle bracket, which Mr. Friede had prepared as a result of his previous discussions with us. It was never our intention, however, to imply that we approved the use of standards
of this design, or with curved brackets, for any part of the city other than outlying areas such as Alaska Avenue, for example.
We were very happy to see the removal of the sample standards that had been set up in the vicinity of the National Gallery of Art on Constitution Avenue; but the members of the Commission, at our last meeting, were very much concerned to see that the old standards had been removed and had been replaced by a new set of standards of the curved-bracket highway type on 17th and 18th Streets between C and D Streets NW. We noted, also, that these standards, which we find unacceptable, now face the Ellipse, the Pan American Union, the east facade of the Interior Department, and the national headquarters of the American Red Cross. These standards are in the heart of the monumental area where so many government buildings are placed and are seen by many visitors to Washington.
The present lighting standards were developed after long study and with the advice of eminent and talented designers and architects, such as Henry Bacon, the architect of the Lincoln Memorial. It is a unified and dignified scheme of lighting, providing a design that is well suited to this city. If a greater intensity of light is needed, I am sure the lighting engineers will be able to find a way to increase the intensity without changing the design of the standards which have been developed so successfully for this city.
The members of the Commission asked me to say that they could not approve the use of the new type of lighting standard, except for the outlying areas of the city. We hope that you will use your efforts to prevent further changes in these standards, and would appreciate it if the former standards were replaced in the monumental areas above mentioned. We would be glad to confer with you about this matter, if you would like to do so, at the next meeting of the Commission which will be held on .Tune 14th.
Meeting with General Lane on 10 October 1956, the members of the Commission stated the need to work in close cooperation with him and the other Commissioners in selecting linhtino- standards which would be uniform throughout the city and the best design for this purpose. The members thought that in view of the large expense involved in making such a change, a plan justifying the expense should be made and submitted for approval not only bv the District Commissioners but by the Congress and the Commission of Fine Arts when appropriations were to be made for the new lighting standards.
Reporting that the District of Columbia Highway Department was proceeding to replace the lighting standards with highway-type gooseneck standards, Chairman Finley re
page 54
ceived the approval of the members to forward a letter reiterating the position of the Commission of Fine Arts. The letter of 21 May 1957 contained the following pertinent paragraphs:
... In the opinion of the Commission, the present standards are both handsome and suitable for the purpose as regards design. We recognize, however, that you may wish to secure greater intensity of lighting and that this may involve a change in the design of the present fixtures. It seems important to the members of the Commission that, whatever design may be selected, the lighting fixtures should be uniform throughout the city and of the best design that can be achieved for this purpose. We believe that the highway-type standards, which you are presently introducing, are not adequate for use in the Nation’s Capital. We hope, therefore, that you will take steps to secure a design which -will meet the criteria we have in mind for this city.
The members of the Commission will be sorry to see a new type of lighting standard substituted for the ones presently in use. They also believe that, in view of the large expense over a period of several years which will be involved in making such a change, a plan should be made which would justify the expense involved and that such a plan should be submitted and have the approval not only of the District Commissioners but the Commission of Fine Arts and the Congress when appropriations are made for the new lighting standards.
... At the last meeting of the Commission, held on April 18th, the members reiterated their concern at the manner in which this important problem is being handled by your Commission. They were particularly concerned because no effort is apparently being made to adapt the present lighting standards to a higher lighting intensity, if that is what you wish to secure for the lighting of certain streets. It was also a matter of concern to the members that, notwithstanding the advice of the Commission in this matter, the highway-type lighting fixtures, such as might be suitable for parking lots, suburbs, or highways, have been introduced into the central monumental area of the city and have replaced the type of lighting fixtures which have heretofore been uniform throughout the city. We now find these highway-type standards facing the Ellipse, the Pan American Union, the east facade of the Interior Department, and the national headquarters of the American Red Cross.
The Commission of Fine Arts is not willing, without protest, to see the present lighting fixtures of Washington replaced in this casual manner so that eventually it will be impossible, except at great expense, to light the city in a dignified manner as befits the Capital of a great nation. We hope, therefore, that steps will be taken to remove the new lighting fixtures in the areas mentioned above and replace them with the lighting fixtures which have heretofore been approved and have proved adequate for many years.
. . . The members of the Commission of Fine Arts would like to work in close cooperation with you and other District officials in reaching a solution of problems that arise from time to time affecting the appearance of the city of Washington. We believe that a change in the design of lighting standards is an important undertaking and one deserving of our best thought.
If a study for a greater intensity of lighting is to be made, we would be glad to work with you on this problem, providing the present fixtures are adapted for this purpose or new fixtures for the entire city are designed from the point of view of greater intensity of lighting and in a way that will conform in dignity and beauty of design to the special requirements of this city as the Nation’s Capital.
Replying in a letter of 7 June 1957, General Lane stated that he had asked the Director of Highways to prepare a lighting plan for the District of Columbia which would provide guidance for this program for many future years. This plan would consider fully the importance of lighting esthetics to the National Capital and the sound application of modern lighting principles and techniques. General Lane’s reply also stated:
Pursuant to these instructions, the Director has consulted with the Washington Chapter of the Al A and has obtained its assistance in establishing an advisory committee of competent architects and illuminating engineers to examine our entire program and make recommendations upon it. The members of this advisory committee are: Frank Duane, AIA; Claude R. Engle, Jr., General Engineering Associates ; A. I). Harrington, General Electric Corp.; Philip B. Clark, Line Materials Industry; Leonard Leache, Potomac Electric Power Co.; E. B. Karns, Westinghouse Electric Co.; and Herbert Friede and Charles Dunn of the District of Columbia Electrical Department.
Pending receipt of the report of this committee and action upon it, the Department of Highways is maintaining the status quo by replacing damaged and defective standards by others of the same type and by limiting general replacement to major new highways where the old standards are clearly unsuitable. These do not involve monumental areas.
The committee has a difficult task and is working diligently at it. I cannot forecast the time of its report, but can assure you it will be made as soon as practicable. When it is received I shall look forward to consultation with your Commission before action is taken by the Board of Commissioners.
In the interim, the highway-type gooseneck lighting standards were installed on several streets in Georgetown and were considered by the Old Georgetown Board of Architectural Consultants as very much out of scale and out
602-604--64
page 55
of character with the atmosphere of Georgetown. A copy of a petition protesting this action was received by the Commission.
Reviews and discussions of this project were continued during the succeeding meetings of the Commission of Fine Arts with a report given at the 26 June 1958 meeting by Mr. Frank Duane, chairman of the advisory committee which was established to examine and make recommendations upon the Highway Department’s program. Reporting that many designs for lighting standards were studied by the committee, Mr. Duane stated that replacement of the present standards with new and taller standards was necessary to provide greater intensity of lighting. The advisory committee recommended the standards which the Commission of Fine Arts had approved for the outlying areas only to replace all present standards throughout the city. Agreeing to oppose changes in the monumental areas, the members expressed the hope that a more suitable design could be developed for other areas. The last action taken by the Commission of Fine Arts during the period of this report was to express the views of the members in a letter to Col. A. C. Welling, Engineer Commissioner, who replaced General Dane:
2 July 1958.
Dear Colonel Welling: At a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts on 26 June 1958, the members conferred with Mr. Herbert A. Friede, electrical engineer, District of Columbia Highway Department, and Mr. Frank Duane, chairman of the Committee to Study Public Lighting for the District of Columbia, regarding the recommendations of that committee for installing mercury-vapor lighting in Washington as replacement for the present light standards that have been in use now for many years.
The Commission, as you know, several years ago recommended that the highway type of lighting fixtures be confined to the outlying areas, and not used in the monumental or residential areas, or in Georgetown. Mr. Friede told us at the meeting that the new type of lighting has been installed on M Street, and is to be installed on Wisconsin Avenue in Georgetown, but that, at present, it is not intended to make such installation in the residential area there.
In this connection, on June 27th, we received from the President of the Georgetown Business and Professions Association. Inc., a copy of a petition signed by the businessmen and merchants of Wisconsin Avenue in Georgetown, and the officers of the two citizens associations protesting the installation of highway-type lights on Wisconsin Avenue. We have also referred this matter to our Board of Advisory
Consultants on Georgetown who recommended that no change be made in the type of lighting in Georgetown for Wisconsin Avenue, M Street, or the residential areas. The Commission of Fine Arts approves this recommendation and believes that consideration should be given to the wishes of the Georgetown residents who are trying to maintain the character of that community in accordance with the Old Georgetown Act, Public Law 808-—81st Congress.
The Commission also believes that the new highway-type lighting should not be used in the monumental and governmental areas such as Constitution Avenue, except possibly at street crossings where such fixtures might be desirable from the point of view of safety. We urge again that the standards presently in use, which were designed for the city of Washington should not be replaced by lighting standards such as are proposed, because they would not be in keeping with the character of Washington as the Nation’s Capital.
We recognize, of course, that the streets and sidewalks must be well lighted to provide for the safety of pedestrians and motorists. If. in order to accomplish this, it becomes necessary to change the present lighting standards, we hope that a more suitable design will be developed than the one which was presented to the Commission in the report of Mr. Duane’s committee.
For the Commission of Fine Arts :
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
Col. A. C. Welling.
Engineer Commissioner for the District of Columbia D istrict Building, Washington. D.C.
BRIDGES
North Capitol Street project: The design for a bridge overpass in the vicinity of the North Capitol Street project, Hawaii and Michigan Avenues, was presented by Mr. William A. McQueen of Worcester Corp, and Mr. G. I. Sawyer, Chief of the Office of Planning, Design and Engineering for the District Highway Department. The plans were approved, in general, by the Commission of Fine Arts on 27 March 1958 with the suggestion to eliminate the masonry abutments where the guard rails teminate.
Railroad Bridge and Viaduct: The drawings and perspective sketch for the Inner Loop Freeway section at 2d Street SW. and South Capitol Street were presented on 23 May 1957. The members of the Commission of Fine Arts thought that the complex problem, involving both a railroad bridge and a viaduct, had been successfully solved by Mr. John Harbe-son, the architect. The architectural features of the plans were approved as presented.
page 56
FREEWAY SYSTEM
Southwest Freeway: Architectural features of the design for the Southwest Freeway, part of the Inner Loop System in the vicinity of 3d and F Streets, were approved by the Commission of Fine Arts as presented by Mr. Gerard I. Sawyer, of the Office of Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, on 19 November 1956 with the hope expressed by the members that plans would be carried out to assure the development and accomplishment of the landscaping indicated in the drawings. A careful study of the lighting system was suggested to assure that designs of lighting-standards would be suitable for use in this area near the Capitol and the Mali.
Confirming the approval of the architectural features only, a letter was forwarded to Gen. Thomas Lane, Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia. Reiterating the Commission’s views on the position of the railroad tracks, the letter from Chairman David E. Finley, of 11 December 1956, stated in part:
Approval of the architectural features of the design of this particular interchange should not be construed to mean, however, that the Commission of Fine Arts favors the general scheme for the freeway as presented. We are compelled to express again our strong conviction that any scheme which does not contemplate removal of the railroad tracks, or depression of the tracks, is not in the best interest for developing a long-range aspect for the southwest part of the city. At this interchange, the roadway will pass under the railroad and will block forever any future solution of this important problem which now blights the civic beauty of the National Capital in close proximity to the Capitol itself. We believe it is especially important that the question of the railroad tracks should be raised and decided before large expenses are incurred in constructing the proposed freeway. To this end, I am sending copies of this letter to the Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission and to the Architect of the Capitol.
Anacostia Freeway: Since several overpasses and underpasses were to be built and were not intended to be monumental, the plan was for simple and inconspicuous designs for the various highway structures of the Ana-costia Freeway System in the Southeast area of Washington. The Commission of Fine Arts during the January, March through June monthly meetings of 1957 reviewed and approved designs for the following:
Overpass at Pennsylvania Avenue. Underpass at 11th Street SE. Interchange. Overpass at Oxon Run Bay Bridge.
Overpass at Suitland Parkway Interchange.
Overpass at Chesapeake Avenue.
Overpass at South Capitol Street.
Overpass at Portland Street.
Overpass at Firth-Sterling Avenue.
Overpass (pedestrian) at 16th Street.
Drawings for the proposed overpass at the entrance to Blue Plains, as a part of the Ana-costia Freeway, were discussed and approved by the members of the Commission at the 6 February 1958 meeting.
Southeast Freeway: The architectural designs for that portion of the Southeast Freeway which extends between Virginia Avenue and 7th Street were approved at the 27 March 1958 meeting as presented and explained by Mr. William J. II. Hough, of Harbeson, Hough Livingston & Larson. A letter confirming the approval by the Commission of Fine Arts was forwarded to Col. A. C. Welling, Engineer Commissioner for the District of Columbia, stating the members’ concern for the effect which this large highway project will have, in general, on the appearance of the city. This favorable action on the details of the design submitted did not imply approval of the Inner Loop as such.
FREEWAY THREAT TO THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
With funds made available by the new highway bill, Public Law 627—84th Congress, construction would proceed on the proposed bridge — Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge—and the Inner Loop which would be unrestricted roadways. Expressing concern that trucks would use the roadways around the Lincoln Memorial and the Mall, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts remarked to Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Lane, Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia who attended the 10 October 1956 meeting, that when the President signed the bill approving the proposed bridge, he stated that it would not be used for truck traffic. Replying that the bridge would be an unlimited traffic bridge and the Memorial Bridge would be limited, Genera] Lane also stated that the Inner Loop would have restricted traffic from 14th Street to the proposed bridge; no interstate highway
602-604—64-
6
page 57
connected this area. No action to prevent any use of the Inner Loop by trucks was taken by the members at this meeting. The policy statement by General Lane which was made a part of the Commission’s record is:
21 August 1956.
MEMORANDUM TO THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Subject: Design of the Inner Loop.
Planning of the Inner Loop introduces new and serious problems of highway design for your department. This project, in addition to the planned beneficial effect on highway traffic, will have a major impact upon the entire development of downtown Washington. It is important that the design be right.
In bringing t hese highway structures into the heart of Washington we have a responsibility to achieve maximum harmony with surrounding property and land uses and to make wise provision for the long-range requirements of the city. The highway program must recognize its obligation to avoid damage to other community programs which will be affected by the highway construction.
The alinement and grade of the design must take into consideration the effect which the required structures will have on surrounding property. Where the highway is elevated and economic community utilization of the space below it is practicable, the design should facilitate such use. The design should be clean in avoiding the creation of dead space which will create future problems of police and sanitation. Structural spans over streets and other ways must be ample to permit future growth, so that you will not be creating the kind of obstacle which you have encountered in some of our railroad underpasses which were built years ago. Features of design which will permit a better public use of available space or avoid the creation of potential community eyesores are in the public interest and should be included in basic highway design.
It is not practicable to anticipate at this time all of the design problems which you will encounter. It is important that these problems as1 they arise be approached with a full recognition of the community interest.
T. A. Lane, Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Engineer Commissioner.
REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY
In reviewing plans for the Southwest Area B, as presented by Mr. John R. Searles, Jr., Executive Director of the Redevelopment Land Agency, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts thought the plans monotonous and poorly designed; coordination with plans of other areas in the city was not indicated.
As a minimum control measure, the members thought that all of Delaware Avenue, within the area to be developed, should be planned by one designer or cooperatively to unify the area.
Plans that proposed wholesale demolition of all structures in the area would be opposed by the members of the Commission. With this statement, expressed on 8 September 1955, the members urged that serious consideration be given to the retention of existing buildings of unquestionable esthetic and practical value; these buildings could be used to establish the key to new construction in the immediate environs. This type of plan, favored by the Commission for any area of redevelopment in Washington, would accomplish worthwhile results, as:
(1)	Preserve certain worthy and attractive old buildings in the District.
(2)	Retain something of the Washington character.
(3)	Furnish that element of surprise without which a housing development has an impersonal and stereotyped atmosphere.
(4)	Turn a housing design from a mere workable layout on paper into an interesting-living area composed of a variety of dwellings individually designed.
(5)	Create a variety of color and texture in the adapting of exterior finishes to the existing structures.
Always promoting and preserving the principles inherent in the L’Enfant plan of 1791 and the McMillan plan of 1901, the Commission hoped that an architect’s ability to realize these standards would be considered by the Redevelopment Land Agency before assigning the responsibility for redevelopment of these areas.
Plans for the Southwest Area C were presented by the Redevelopment Land Agency on 5 October 1955, with the members of the Commission suggesting future conferences as the plans progressed. Hon. George Garrett, Presidential adviser on the redevelopment of Southwest Washington, appeared before the Commission on 9 November 1955, at his own request, in support of the plans developed by Webb & Knapp for the Agency. Proposing that another site be selected for the Air Museum so that the 10th Street Mall and its commercial center could be developed, as
page 58
planned, with the open vista at Independence Avenue, Mr. Garrett suggested a site farther to the east on Independence Avenue which would require the dosing of Maryland Avenue and 6th Street. Unable to approve this plan, the Commission thought further study was required by the Smithsonian Institution, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Redevelopment Land Agency.
Discussing the progress of the Southwest redevelopment plan at the 9 May 1956 meeting, the members agreed that the plan changed and competed with the L’Enfant plan. A report by the National Capital Planning Commission on the Webb & Knapp proposals was to be made at a public hearing held by the District Commissioners on 14 May 1956. Chairman Finley of the Commission of Fine Arts was requested to express the members’ views on this important project in a letter to Mr. Robert E. McLaughlin, President of the Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, as follows:
11 May 1956.
Dear Mr. McLaughlin : At a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts on 9 and 10 May 1956, the members noted that public hearings will be held by the District Commissioners on 14 May 1956, on the Webb & Knapp proposal for the urban renewal plan of Southwest Washington. The development of this plan is, of course, a matter of the greatest interest to the members of the Commission of Fine Arts whose responsibilities extend, by virtue of the enabling act and various Executive orders, to matters which affect, in an important way, the appearance of the city of Washington. While no formal request has been made for the opinion of the Commission of Fine Arts in this matter, the members have expressed their views informally on several occasions to the representatives of Webb & Knapp. They have asked me to forward to you, for inclusion in the record, the following comments which they would like to make on the proposed plan :
1.	In general, the proposed plan does not conform to and becomes competitive with the L’Enfant plan and the pattern it established for the development of the Federal City.
2.	No significant, comprehensive plan can be wholly successful that does not require the reorganization of the railroad tracks and the removal of the Federal warehouse.
3.	Office buildings on the scale indicated would not be in harmony with the architectural development of the city.
4.	Unless a scheme of this character is the best achieveable, and unless it is carried out in its entirety, it may prove to be more harmful, than beneficial, to the development of the city.
We hope these matters may be taken into consideration by you and others responsible for carry
ing out the proposed plan for the development of the city of Washington.
For the Commission of Fine Arts :
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
To plan and execute the proposed Northwest Redevelopment Area, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts recommended an advisory panel of architects, landscape architects, and engineers selected for their abilities by the Redevelopment Land Agency rather than a compel it ion for architects and engineers. This recommendation, made at the 8 December 1955 meeting, was in answer to a question by Mr. Searles of the Redevelopment Land Agency.
Maps showing (he boundaries of the area and plans for renewal were explained by Mi-. Charles Conrad of the National Capital Planning Commission on 6 February 1958 to members of the Commission of Fine Arts whose views were expressed to the Planning Commission in the following letter:
14 February 1958.
Dear Mr. Bartholomew : The members of the Commission of Fine Arts are grateful for the fine presentation which Mr. Charles Conrad, of the Planning Commission staff, made at the meeting on 6 February 1958, in explanation of the preliminary plans for the Northwest Urban Renewal Area. This was the first opportunity we have had to discuss this plan with your representatives.
We were glad to see that the plans had been developed with due respect for the major features of the L’Enfant plan and were pleased to note the new block-size park areas that are to be developed to the north and east of Mount Vernon Square and along Massachusetts Avenue, as well as other smaller areas. Mr. Conrad made the magnitude of the technical problems posed by your programs of conservation, rehabilitation, and clearance clearly evident, and we recognize that the difficulties have been multiplied by the extension through this area of the Inner Loop, which has presented its own special problems.
The city of Washington has, as you know, a unique character of its own in comparison with other American cities. We hope that all your proposals can be worked out to avoid the loss of the Washington character, and to preserve any worthwhile buildings that may be located in the area under study. We will be glad to confer with you on these matters as the plans progress.
For the Commission of Fine Arts :
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman. Hon. Harland Bartholomew,
Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission Washington, D.C.
page 59
CHAPTER SEVEN*
The Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge
THE PLAN for a bridge from E Street NW., directly across Theodore Roosevelt Island to the Virginia shore, as proposed by the Highway Department of the District of Columbia, was opposed by the Commission of Fine Arts on 28 March 1952. The resolution adopted by the Commission, contained in the Sixteenth Report, stated that a bridge directly across the island would in a large measure destroy the landscape of the area between the Memorial Bridge and the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and that the Government, when accepting the island as a gift from the Roosevelt Memorial Association, had agreed to preserve the island in its natural state. The abandonment of the E Street Bridge proposal was based on the opposition of the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Association and the disapproval of the National Capital Planning Commission and of the Commission of Fine Arts.
Another bridge was proposed to begin at New Hampshire Avenue and to cross the southern portion of the island. The Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts, Mr. David E. Finley, testifying on 15 July 1954 at a hearing before the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia on the bill to erect this bridge and another at Jones Point, stated:
As regards the proposed bridge at New Hampshire Avenue, there has been no opportunity for the Commission of Fine Arts to consider this plan. In view of the time and thought which the chairman of this committee, and also the members, have given to this subject, I would like the Commission to have an opportunity to consider the plan at their next meeting. Meanwhile, I would like to express my own views as regards the bridge, and to point out one objection which I am sure the Commission will raise in this connection.
The Commission believes very strongly that any bridge such as the proposed E Street Bridge, which
might be erected between Roosevelt Island and Memorial Bridge, would seriously impair tlie appearance of the Mall and the approaches to the Lincoln Memorial. Many of the same objections, in my opinion, would apply to a bridge at New Hampshire Avenue which is at present under consideration. This bridge, like the E Street Bridge, while alleviating traffic problems for the time being, would work a permanent injury to the landscape setting of the Lincoln Memorial.
None of these objections which I have indicated above would apply to the proposed bridges at Jones Point, Roaches Run, or Cabin John.
As the Capital of a great Nation, the city of Washington belongs to all of the people of this country. They have a deep and abiding interest in preserving the beauty of the public buildings, monuments, and the park areas which make this one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Such considerations as these should not be sacrificed in order to secure a solution of traffic problems which will continue to arise in this city with its large suburban areas and a constant flow of tourists and commuters in and out of the city. I hope, therefore, some other solution may be found to meet our present traffic problems without erecting a bridge between Roosevelt Island and the Lincoln Memorial.
Following the hearing, the proposed bridge at New Hampshire Avenue was withdrawn from the bill and a bill authorizing a bridge south of 'Theodore Roosevelt Island at Constitution Avenue was enacted by Congress without a further hearing. Chairman Finley, at the request of the Bureau of the Budget, replied on the enrolled bill, in a letter of 25 August 1954, that the Commission of Fine Arts hoped some other solution for traffic problems might be found which would avoid placing a bridge between Memorial Bridge and Small Island. The Commission, recognizing it to be of the greatest importance to preserve fhe relationship of land and water which distinguishes the western termination of the Mall adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial and extends
page 61
inward from the Virginia slope of the Potomac, could not approve a bridge at this location.
The President signed the bill authorizing the Constitution Avenue Bridge on 30 August 1954, and on the same day issued the following statement:
I have today signed H.R. 1980, a bill authorizing the construction of two bridges over the Potomac River, one from a point at or near Jones Point, Va., and tlie other from the vicinity of Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia to the Virginia side.
I have signed this enrolled bill because it provides, in Title I, a compromise solution for the long-standing controversy as to the location of a central area bridge across the Potomac. The bill, however, contains serious defects which should be corrected as soon as possible. Certain of the defects can be corrected by Executive action in the form of instructions, whereas others will require amendment of the legislation.
Title I of the enrolled bill, in providing for the construction of the central area bridge by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, fails to provide statutory recognition and adjustment of the relationship of the bridge, together with its approaches and connecting roads, to existing and potential improvements on park lands. The bridge, with its high traffic volume, will have a serious impact on some of the most important of the national memorials. It can affect importantly the effectiveness of the memorial concept of Arlington Memorial Bridge, which symbolizes the reunion of the North and South and provides a monumental approach to Arlington National Cemetery. It can infringe upon the Water Gate design as a monumental entrance to the Mall from the Potomac River. Most serious of all could be the effect of the bridge on the beautiful setting of the Lincoln Memorial.
In order to minimize the possible impairment of the monumental design and artistic setting of the Lincoln Memorial and other monumental structures in that area, the Secretary of the Interior should continue to keep control and jurisdiction over all park lands in the vicinity of the bridge except the actual bridge structure and the road and street surface between curbs necessary for maintenance by the District of Columbia. The Secretary of the Interior also should be authorized to approve all plans for the bridge and for approach roads and interchanges at both ends of the bridge since park structures and land are involved. Trucks should be prohibited on the bridge and its approaches, and all passenger-carrying buses now utilizing the Arlington Memorial Bridge should be required to use the new bridge upon its completion.
I am requesting the Secretary of the Interior to submit to me recommendations for Executive action and amendments of the act necessary to correct these defects in this legislation.
Being informed that the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Association on 27 October 1954 had not modified its opposition to a bridge crossing Theodore Roosevelt Island and that the District government would not consider other locations such as Roaches Run or Three Sisters Islands, the Commission of Fine Arts at the 10 November 1954 meeting concluded that the only feasible solution seemed to be an underwater crossing. Accordingly, Chairman David E. Finley wrote the Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Douglas McKay, suggesting that studies be made of an underwater crossing and prepared the following statement for the press:
At a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts on November 10th, the members gave consideration to the proposed bridge which has been authorized by the Congress to be erected over the Potomac River between Memorial Bridge and Theodore Roosevelt Island. The Commission felt that further study should be given to this matter in view of the following statement issued by the President on 30 August 1954, when he signed the bill authorizing the construction of the bridge:
“The bridge, with its high traffic volume, will have a serious impact on some of the most important of the national memorials. It can affect importantly the effectiveness of the memorial concept of Arlington Memorial Bridge, which symbolizes the reunion of the North and South and provides a monumental approach to Arlington National Cemetery. It can infringe upon the Water Gate design as a monumental entrance to the Mall from the Potomac River. Most serious of all could be the effect of the bridge on the beautiful setting of the Lincoln Memorial.”
In the opinion of the Commission, the bridge to be erected over the Potomac River between the Memorial Bridge and Theodore Roosevelt Island would seriously affect the beauty of these memorials. The Mall terminating in the Memorial Bridge and the wide expanse of the river, with the wooded island given to the Nation as a memorial to Theodore Roosevelt, provide a setting of incomparable beauty for the Lincoln Memorial and form perhaps the finest civic landscape in America. It is of the utmost importance that this landscape should not be marred by the intrusion of another bridge at this point.
These views were stated by the Chairman of the Commission at a hearing held by the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia on 15 July 1954. They were stated also in a letter, dated 25 August 1954, from the Commission to the Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, saying that the Commission could not endorse the erection of a bridge between Memorial Bridge and Theodore Roosevelt Island.
page 62
The Commission fully appreciates the difficulties faced by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia in their efforts to meet the traffic problems that arise in this city, in part due to increasing commuter traffic from suburban areas in Virginia. Such considerations, however, should not be allowed to mar the 'beauty of the city, particularly in an important area such as that surrounding the Lincoln Memorial at \the termination of the Mall with the view of Arlington National Cemetery across the river.
If no other site is available for a bridge without sacrificing the beauty of this area, an additional thoroughfare between the Virginia suburbs and the center of Washington should be provided by means of a tunnel under the river. Such a tunnel would be costly, but the cost would not be comparable to the loss we would sustain if the projected bridge is built as now authorized. Nor would this cost be incommensurate with the resources of this Nation or the dignity and beauty of its Capital City. The landscape setting of the Lincoln Memorial—a unique collaboration of nature, art, and history—belongs not only to the city of Washington but to the American people. It also belongs to the coming generations for whom we of our generation are trustees.
The Commission, therefore, has recommended that a tunnel be substituted for the proposed bridge if no other site is available. They hope that the Congress may be willing to give further consideration to this matter and that existing legislation may be amended to this end.
In his reply of 22 November 1954, the Secretary of tlie Interior stated that every effort should be made ££to avoid marring the present beauty of the scene where the Potomac flows past the Lincoln Memorial and on under the graceful span memorializing the reunion of the North and South,” and that studies of a tunnel crossing, as recommended by the Commission of Fine Arts, would receive serious consideration.
Having attended the National Capital Planning Commission’s meeting on 4 February 1955, Chairman Finley reported to members of the Commission of Fine Arts on 10 February that Mr. Ole Singstad, professional engineer and tunnel expert of New York, gave the results of his studies on the feasibility of a tunnel. Mi-. Singstad had stated the cost of building a tunnel would not be excessive compared with the cost of a bridge at approximately the same location. After hearing Mr. Harry T. Thompson, Associate Superintendent of the National Capital Parks, describe the proposed tunnel and learning its cost would not be excessive, the members concluded that the Commission should urge the President, upon
receipt of a report from the Secretary of the Interior, to recommend to Congress that the existing legislation be amended to substitute a tunnel for the authorized bridge.
The members of the Commission of Fine Arts who were appointed by the President on 18 February 1955, attending their first meeting of the Commission 15 March 1955, were briefed by Chairman Finley on the situation regarding the proposed bridge and the recommendations made by the former members of the Commission. The new members—Mrs. Emily Muir, painter; Mr. Wallace K. Harrison, Mr. William G. Perry, and Mr. Douglas W. Orr, architects—approved the position previously taken by the Commission and resolved that the Chairman should submit a statement to that effect to the President. Chairman Finley’s letter of 16 March 1955 stated:
My Dear Mr. President: The Commission of Fine Arts held a meeting yesterday, at which the full membership was present, including those whom you have recently appointed to the Commission.
The members of the Commission considered the proposed bridge which has been authorized by the Congress to be erected over the Potomac River between the Memorial Bridge and Theodore Roosevelt Island. They also visited the proposed site of the bridge at the end of Constitution Avenue and, after careful study of the effect which such a bridge would have on the landscape setting of the Lincoln Memorial, Theodore Roosevelt Island, and Arlington National Cemetery, the members by unanimous vote arrived at the conclusion that a bridge should never be built at this location.
The present members of the Commission, as do their predecessors, believe that a bridge at the location proposed would seriously mar the beauty of these memorials, which constitute such an important part of the heritage of the American people. The Commission strongly urges that a tunnel be built if no other site for a bridge is available, and has asked me to forward their recommendations io you. This action reaffirms the position previously taken by the Commission of Fine Arts in its recommendations to the Congress and to you as set forth in my letter of 1G February 1955.
The Commission hopes that you may be willing to recommend to the Congress that existing legislation (Public Law 704—83d Congress) be amended to provide for the construction of a tunnel instead of a bridge in the vicinity of the Lincoln Memorial and Theodore Roosevelt Island.
For the Commission of Fine Arts : Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman.
The President, The White House, Washington, D.C.
page 63
The draft of a bill, amending the act of 30 August 1954, to provide for a tunnel in place of a bridge at Constitution Avenue was considered, as the Bureau of the Budget requested, by the members of the Commission of Fine Arts during the 13 April 1955 meeting. Although the members replied endorsing the draft legislation, the Bureau of the Budget later concluded that the extra cost required to build a tunnel was not justified and had notified the interested agencies to find another solution.
Presented with this fact, Air. Elbert Peets, landscape architect member of the Commission of Fine Arts, prepared sketches, which were sent to the Theodore Roosevelt Association, showing the effect that a Constitution Avenue bridge would have on the area. A proposal that the association allow a bridge across the northern end of the island was made on 10 June 1955, at a meeting of Mr. Hermann Hagedorn, director of the association, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and Chairman Finley and Mr. Peets of the Commission of Fine Arts, whose members urged the Theodore Roosevelt Association to reconsider its refusal to consent to any bridge crossing the island.
Reconsideration was given by the association whose director so informed Chairman Finley on 16 June 1955, as follows:
My Dear Mr. Finley: Under the act (Public Law 146—72d Congress) which accepted Theodore Roosevelt Island, in the Potomac River just above the Arlington Memorial Bridge, as a gift from the Theodore Roosevelt Association to the Nation, the association was given authority to prevent any development of the island which it might deem inconsistent with the island’s memorial character. In trying to fulfill this responsibility, acting as trustee for the thousands whose contributions made the purchase of the island possible, the association has opposed bridge plans which would compromise the island’s memorial character. We had, in fact, come to hope that a tunnel might solve the problem which we know confronts the District Commissioners, the National Park Service, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Fine Arts Commission. The association has been authoritatively informed, however, that the excessive cost of a tunnel and its approaches has removed that possibility.
The association has been given to understand further that the proposed bridge location just south of Theodore Roosevelt Island, which was approved by the Congress last spring, is not a happy solution because it is still sharply opposed by the National
Park Service and the Fine Arts Commission, by many other experts in the field of engineering and city planning, and by other distinguished and informed individuals, because of what they regard as the disastrous effect that such a bridge would have upon the “central composition” of the National Capital, including particularly the area of the Lincoln Memorial and the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Nonetheless, the association is aware of the urgent necessity to determine a location for a new bridge and to initiate plans and construction at the earliest possible date.
Accordingly, our executive committee has today given prompt consideration to the plea of the District Commissioners to break the 2-year deadlock by permitting the construction of a bridge across, or adjoining, the extreme northerly end of Theodore Roosevelt Island.
The executive committee was particularly impressed by your appeal, in behalf of the Fine Arts Commission, that the solution would preserve the beauty of the “central composition” of Washington.
I am authorized to inform you, on behalf of our executive committee, that, if the association can be assured that the National Park Service and the National Capital Planning Commission are joining you and the District Commissioners in your effort to have the proposed bridge relocated across, or adjoining, the extreme northerly end of Theodore Roosevelt Island, the association will go along, provided that the character and design of the bridge, as well as its relation to the island, both physically and as a memorial, receive the association's approval, as well as that of the Fine Arts Commission and the National Park Service; and provide, further, that the bridge shall be named the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge.
May we express the hope that the work on the bridge may be so coordinated with the plans for the development of the island that the bridge may be dedicated as part of the Theodore Roosevelt Centennial in 1958?
Very sincerely yours,
Hermann Hagedorn.
Mr. David E. Finley,
Chairman, Fine Arts Commission, Washington, D.C.
A release to the press announcing the association's decision was issued by Chairman Finley, stating in part:
This generous action on the part of the Theodore Roosevelt Association will make possible the erection of a bridge in the central area without marring the setting of the Lincoln Memorial, the Memorial Bridge, Arlington National Cemetery, and Theodore Roosevelt Island, as would have been the case if plans had been carried out to erect a bridge at the Constitution Avenue location.
The Commission of Fine Arts, which has opposed the erection of a bridge at Constitution Avenue, will be happy to approve a bridge across the northern end of Theodore Roosevelt Island. The Commission has
page 64
also approved the construction of a bridge at Roaches Run if such a bridge should later become necessary to meet traffic conditions. It is hoped that the plan for an immediate crossing at the northern end of Theodore Roosevelt Island which has been made possible by the action of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, will offer a solution to1 the difficulties arising out of the construction of a bridge in the central area and that existing legislation may be amended to this end.
A bridge crossing the northern end of the island was approved by representatives of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, National Park Service, and the Commission of Fine Arts at a meeting held with the District Commissioners on 21 June 1955. Opposition to a bridge at this location, as expressed by the State of Virginia highway officials attending this meeting, was based on the lack of funds for constructing adequate connecting roads between the bridge, route 50, and Lee Highway. The District Commissioners did not approve a bridge at the northern end because of the Virginia highway officials’ position.
Before approving the appropriation of funds to begin construction of the Constitution Avenue Bridge, the Senate added an amendment to the appropriation bill which stated that the bridge could be shifted north of Constitution Avenue—crossing Small Island at the southern tip of Theodore Roosevelt Island—if the Theodore Roosevelt Association would consent to the change before 1 August 1955. Later, at a Senate-House conference on the District of Columbia fiscal budget, an agreement was reached to restore the $1.5 million item of construction funds to begin the Constitution Avenue Bridge. The amendment permitting the bridge to be located farther from the Memorial Bridge was deleted at this time. Senator Francis Case of South Dakota then indicated that he would introduce a bill in Congress to permit the bridge to pass over Small Island, provided the association indorsed the crossing.
The Secretary of the Interior was notified on 8 July 1955 that the trustees of the Theodore Roosevelt Association had agreed in principle to constructing a low-level bridge across Small Island, provided the proposed bridge be named the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, it give access to the main island, and its design be approved by the Commission of Fine Arts. Bills permitting the Small Island crossing were introduced in Congress with the endorse-
ment of the District Commissioners and the Federal agencies involved. Although the Senate approved the bill without the amendment, the House failed to act and Congress adjourned with no further action on the bill.
Although Congress took no action on the bill, the plans for a bridge continued. The developments in the design of the proposed bridge were discussed by Mr. J. N. Robertson, Director of the Department of Highways and Traffic, District of Columbia, his assistants, and members of the Commission of Fine Arts at the 7 September 1955 meeting. With a number of drawings presented and studied, nine questions referring to specific details of construction were submitted for the Commission s consideration. The questions and the Commission’s replies were:
1.	Is the network of roadways on the Washington approach acceptable to the Commission!?
The position of the network of roadways on the Washington approach is not yet acceptable. The Commission believes there should be no encroachment of the bridge approaches on the Mall area south of Constitution Avenue.
2.	Are the structures as indicated on the Washington approach acceptable as to location and desirability?
The structures as indicated on the Washington approach are consequently not acceptable as to location and desirability. The overhead crossing of Constitution Avenue at 23d Street is especially undesirable.
3.	Should the bridge deck be lower than the Memorial Bridge, or at the same elevation as the Memorial Bridge, or at the greater elevation than the Memorial Bridge?
The bridge deck should be as low as possible, particularly at the point where it crosses Theodore Roosevelt Island.
4.	Will the Commission accept the construction of embankments on the Washington approach to the bridge in lieu of continuous structures spanning over the area?
Construction of embankments is acceptable in principle.
5.	Will the Commission recommend a steel bridge on stone-faced walls, or a concrete bridge with steelfaced fascia beams, or will the Commission insist on construction of a masonry bridge?
1 he ( ommission does not prefer a masonry bridge, but would like to see studies of the above alternatives. The bridge structure should be as light as possible.
6.	Is the general location of the bridge acceptable to the Commission?
The Commission believes that the location of the bridge is acceptable in general, but it is not yet ready to indicate approval in detail. The inter
page 65
section on the Washington shore may have to be moved further north to accommodate the revised interchanges.
7.	Is the Commission receptive to the idea of constructing retaining walls across Roosevelt Island which would retain a large fill which in turn would blend in with the existing topography of the island?
The Commission is receptive in principle to the idea of constructing retaining walls across the southern tip of Roosevelt Island as long as they blend with the existing topography of the island The Commission understands that the Theodore Roosevelt Association desires provisions in the design to permit pedestrian and vehicular access to the island. The problem of entrance and exit as well as the number of cars that can be parked should be studied after consultation with the Theodore Roosevelt Island Association.
8.	Is the Commission interested in the esthetic treatment of the Virginia approach to the bridge?
The Commission is very much interested in the esthetic treatment of the Virginia approach to the bridge; especially, in the views of the city from the Marine Memorial, and the views of the Marine Memorial from the bridge over the western channel of the river.
9.	Will the Commission recommend to the District whether or not the overpasses on the Washington approach to the bridge should be of stone masonry or of steel construction?
The Commission recommends that the overpasses adjacent to the Mall on the Washington approach to the bridge should be of masonry rather than steel.
The members of the Commission believe that the construction of a study model will facilitate achieving satisfactory development of most of the design problems raised and they hope that steps may be taken to study the conditions by this method at the earliest opportunity.
Plans for roads leading to the bridge as submitted by the Highway Department were unacceptable to the members of the Commission of Fine Arts because the approaches on the District of Columbia area appeared too near (he Lincoln Memorial, and on the Virginia shore the embankment for the ramps would virtually isolate the Iwo Jima Memorial. The Commission's suggestions for a new approach to this problem which would protect the Lincoln Memorial from the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge traffic submitted to Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Lane, Engineer Commissioner for the District of Columbia, were set forth in the following letter:
5 October 1955.
Dear General Lane : Since last meeting with you. the members of the Commission of Fine Arts have studied the problems connected with the design of the Constitution Avenue crossing and they have
asked me to forward, for your consideration, some ideas for a new approach to the problem which will give more protection to the Lincoln Memorial from the Roosevelt Bridge traffic.
We suggest that the situation could be simplified by giving up the southerly connections between the bridge and the expressway. This omission would be feasible if the traffic from the central city were so channeled as to limit the westbound through traffic on Constitution Avenue to cars intending to cross the river via the Roosevelt Bridge or the Memorial Bridge, or those going north on the expressway. The E Street-Expressway Interchange, however, would have full connections with the Roosevelt Bridge and the expressway.
This scheme is based on the supposition that very little traffic from the central city will want to turn south at the Potomac and, further, that Virginia traffic destined for points south of the Mall should use the Memorial Bridge.
As we visualize it, the construction resulting from this simplified program would be approximately as follows:
(1)	Constitution Avenue, just west of 23d Street, would bear to the north, holding the present right of way, where the northbound lane would swing to the north. The main flow (west and east traffic, divided only by a median strip) would swing to the west and rise to enter the bridge.
(2)	From the bridge two ramps would swing down to grade. The descending ramp, for east bound bridge traffic headed north, would loop around and pass under the bridge. At this point some traffic will enter the Rock Creek Parkway, the rest will move northeast to enter the E Street-Expressway Interchange. The northerly (ascending) ramp would carry westbound traffic from the interchange to the bridge. (Note: The descending ramp might possibly swing under the avenue as it approaches the bridge, if the location of the expressway permits it.)
In order to provide space for the descending loop to be constructed north of the northerly row of trees flanking Constitution Avenue, it will be necessary to move the bridge about 300 or 400 feet farther north than the location shown in your present studies. We believe that such a change would be desirable for other reasons than the accommodation of the ramp mentioned above. These reasons are :
(1)	There is a greater distance from the Lincoln Memorial, Memorial Bridge, etc.
(2)	There is a better architectural relation to the granite exedra or overlook at the end of Constitution Avenue.
(3)	There is a better view of the bridge as seen in the Constitution Avenue vista. In the present plan the bridge crosses the Constitution axis at a very flat and slivering angle which would be weak and confusing in the views from the avenue and from the bridge.
(4)	And, at the island end. the bridge would occupy a more northerly location which would
page 66
be desirable because it would sibility that some important on South Island would be lost, touches the north end of South land is highest and where high ing tree growth can be expected.
remove the pos-screening foliage The present plan
Island, where the and wide spread-
The construction of the expressway would also be simplified by this program. Preferably it should be sunken, within the grounds of the Lincoln Memorial, so that the moving cars will not be seen. Since the present Constitution Avenue right-of-way would be preserved, at least as a park feature there would have to be a bridge of some kind at the place where the Expressway cuts through the avenue.
We will be grateful if you will consider these suggestions. After you have received them, perhaps some of our members could meet with your engineers for a further exchange of views.
For the Commission of Fine Arts :
Sincerely yours,
David E. Finley, Chairman. Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Lane, Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia, 1)20 District Buildinff, Washington, D.C.
Several designs including three submitted by Modjeski & Masters, consulting engineers, and Harbeson, Hough, Livingstone & Larson, consulting architects, were presented at the 16 February 1956 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts by Mr. J. N. Robertson, Director of the Department of Highways, District of Columbia. Two designs for a pre-stressed concrete bridge also were presented as developed by Freyssinet-Preload, consulting engineers, and Moore & Hutchins, architects. Expressing the members' impressions of the designs in a letter of 9 March 1956 to Mr. Robertson, Chairman Finley also emphasized the Commission's views on this project, by stat ing as follows:
In line with our discussion, we have reviewed our letter of 14 September 1955, in which we stated our approval, in principle, of moving the location of the bridge northward from the site authorized by Public Law 704—84th Congress, as a result of the Theodore Roosevelt Association’s granting permission to cross the southern tip of Roosevelt Island. As you will recall, we have always hoped it would not be necessary to bridge the river in this area, but agreed to work closely with you in getting the best possible location and design for the bridge which the Congress approved here. Accordingly, in the interval since September, we have progressively studied, by means of the plans and elevations which you and your consultants have submitted, the overall design of the bridge structure and its approaches on both sides of the river.
Of the three designs submitted by Modjeski & Masters, consulting engineers, and Harbeson, Hough,
Livingstone & Larson, consulting architects, the members of the Commission agreed that the stonefaced bridge design was not so suitable for this location as the steel design. Of the two steel designs, the members preferred the ribbon-type span to the haunch-type span, and you have accordingly developed drawings of the roadway and pier details at a larger scale. No decision has been reached on the design of the pier, nor has any preference of material been expressed, although the use of a dark granite in preference to brownish ashlar has been discussed. The design of the side rail and sidewalk has been studied, and we believe it will provide as extensive a view of the landscape from the bridge as is possible. The study of the rail and the illumination of the bridge from a central tier of standards appears to be satisfactory.
Of the two prestressed concrete designs presented on 1(5 February 1956, by Freyssinet-Preload, consulting engineers, and Moore & Hutchins, architects, the members of the Commission preferred the design labeled “Prestressed concrete design—cast in place construction.” In general, the prestressed concrete design was favorably received, although no preference between it and the steel design was registered at the time. The design and spacing of the piers was especially noted. However, the use of special aggregates on the surface of the concrete was definitely considered undesirable. More time is needed to analyze fully the merits of these designs.
The Commission has stressed the point that access to Theodore Roosevelt Island from the bridge is a stipulation made by the Theodore Roosevelt Association in giving permission to cross the southern part of the Island. We believe that pedestrain access and, if the association insists upon it, vehicular access, should be provided where the bridge crosses the island. Pedestrain access should be from both sides of the traffic lanes.
We have never been satisfied about the maze of roadways designed to give access to this bridge. The approaches to the bridge on the District side are, in the opinion of the Commission, less damaging to the Lincoln Memorial now that the connections have been located to the north of Constitution Avenue away from the immediate vicinity of the Lincoln Memorial. However, the overpass at 2.3d Street and Constitution Avenue is still considered to be undesirable. We wish definitely to record our opposition to this overpass, which we believe will seriously mar the termination of Constitution Avenue.
The complexity of the approaches to the bridge on the Virginia side of the river is also unfortunate, even with the elimination of a triple overpass. Possibly this complexity could be reduced by omitting some of the connections. The Commission believes, by reason of the proximity of the great memorials that exist or are planned in this vicinity, that we cannot approve the Virginia approaches as now planned.
The making of a beautiful bridge structure stretching above the water from bank to bank is the easiest
page 67
and most feasible part of this problem, even though it will be achieved at the cost of bisecting a serene river landscape of unique and monumental appeal. Our studies of the problem of the approaches, up to this time, have convinced us that your cooperation and our own efforts can scarcely result in anything but an alleviation of a situation that will long be regretted. The compromise solutions, involving constricted approaches on both sides of the river, serve only to emphasize our conviction that there is too little land available in this area for a traffic artery. Such a bridge and its proposed approaches will irreparably damage the parkland and grassy slopes of the areas surrounding the great memorials on both sides of the river. The members of the Commission fully appreciate the beauty which a fine bridge and well-designed approaches can create in suitable surroundings, but it is their considered opinion that the most we can hope for here is a twisted complex of approaches to the bridge, on both sides of the river that will scar and mutilate this monumental river landscape, which is so important to the city of Washington.
Appearing before the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives on 13 June 1956, Chairman Finley stated the views of the Commission on a bill to authorize a tunnel crossing in the vicinity of Constitution Avenue and another bill to authorize a bridge crossing the southern tip of Small Island. Summarizing the position of the Commission of Fine Arts, the Chairman stated at this hearing:
I would like to say in the beginning that we greatly prefer the more northerly location proposed in H.R. 7472 to the location authorized in Public Law 704, and hope that, if there is to be a bridge here, the Congress will authorize the change of site permitted by H.R. 7472. I would also like to emphasize that a tunnel in place of the bridge would preserve the river landscape and eliminate many of the basic objections which the Commission of Fine Arts holds in regard to a Potomac bridge crossing at this point.
In thinking back over the testimony given during the course of this hearing, it is impossible not to be struck with the way that facts and details, pro and con, have been heaped into a mass of confusing and conflicting prejudices. Only rarely has there been any attempt to bring into the discussion the broad aspects of the general plan that need also to be considered. The first of these is that we are dealing here with matters that will vitally and disastrously affect and change the appearance of the National Capital. It has been repeatedly stated that engineering surveys have shown that Constitution Avenue is the point demanded by many practical considerations for a traffic artery crossing the Potomac River, but no one seems to have paused long enough to ask whether the traffic need is the only factor that should be satisfied, or to appraise the loss that would
result. The Commission of Fine Arts firmly believes that there are just as many valid arguments why a crossing should not be located there, and that, if imperious necessity, in the last resort, does demand a crossing there, the Commission believes that such a crossing should be built as the last of a series of river crossings and not the first. Traffic is a fluid element, it moves through channels like water through a conduit. It can cross upriver and downriver from Constitution Avenue if the conduit is supplied.
We will concede that some landscapes are not harmed by bridges crossing through them, and that some landscapes are even improved by the addition of a fine example of man’s capability and hard work, but between Key Bridge and the Memorial Bridge there is, by universal acclaim, a civic landscape that now approaches perfection in its relation of land, water, and air elements to the city and to the great national monuments. No foreign capital has anything like it; no American city has its equal, and yet we are heedlessly being forced by the unyielding attitude of the highway engineers to sacrifice all this for their calculated and mechanical premises. They do not seem to want to consider that here we are attempting to preserve a precious heritage of beauty that we have received unsullied from our forefathers, and should pass unsullied to our children. To sacrifice it now for an estimated number of minutes saved in going about our daily affairs verges on criminal neglect. The Commission of Fine Arts believes it is its duty to point out once again the gravity of what it considers to be a shortsighted attitude.
This stand of the Commission of Fine Arts is not a new one. We have not favored previous plans to build bridges in this area. We opposed the presently authorized bridge when rublie Law 704 was enacted in 1954.
With the Senate passing a bill authorizing a fixed-span bridge crossing Small Island and the House favoring a bill authorizing a draw bridge, Congress became deadlocked and called a joint House-Senate conference which reported favorably on a draw-span bridge crossing Theodore Roosevelt Island. Adjournment of the 84th Congress on 27 July 1956 without taking any final action was necessary as the Senate insisted on the fixed-span bridge.
When the 85th Congress convened, the views of the Commission of Fine Arts on bills (H.R. 4366 and H.R. 4367) to authorize a tunnel or a bridge across the Potomac near Constitution Avenue were presented on 19 February 1957 to the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives by Chairman David E. Finley, stating:
I appreciate this opportunity to appear here today, on behalf of the Commission of Fine Arts, and to
page 68
give you our views with reference to pending legislation (H.R. 4366 and H.R. 4367) to build a tunnel or a bridge across the Potomac River in the vicinity of Constitution Avenue.
If there is to be a river crossing at this point, in addition to the existing Memorial Bridge, the Commission would greatly prefer a tunnel, as provided in H.R. 4366. A tunnel would eliminate at least some of the objections which we would have to another bridge in this area.
There is no question in our minds that a bridge erected between the Memorial Bridge and Theodore Roosevelt Island, or even a bridge crossing the lower end of the island as provided in H.R. 4367, would detract from the beauty of this area by competing with the Memorial Bridge and introducing another element into what is now a balanced and beautiful composition. This would be true regardless of how beautiful the design of the proposed bridge might be. Also, another bridge in this location, with its approaches on both sides of the river, would intensify the traffic problems that already exist and make the memorials in this neighborhood the center of a swirling traffic vortex that will seriously affect the appearance of the entire area. The memorials, themselves, will remain, but the beauty and dignity of their surroundings will largely disappear.
These memorials, as you know, include the one to Abraham Lincoln, visited by millions of people each year. Here also is the Memorial Bridge, symbolizing the union of the North and the South, and as such has a special significance that should not be lessened by a competing bridge in this neighborhood. Included also are Theodore Roosevelt Island, the Marine Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
These memorials do not belong to the people of Washington. They belong to all the people of this country for whom we are, in a sense, trustees. I think we should consider very carefully whether we have the right to sacrifice the beauty of the setting of these great monuments merely to obtain some temporary alleviation of traffic problems, particularly when some other solution can be found, if there is the will to do so.
The position of the Commission of Fine Arts has been consistent in this matter. We have not favored previous plans to build bridges in this area. We are opposed to the location of the bridge authorized in Public Law 704, as enacted in 1054. But the fact that we were opposed to such a bridge did not prevent us from cooperating since that time with the agencies involved in trying to get the best possible design for the bridge and its approaches, as authorized in Public Law 704. We went to the Theodore Roosevelt Island trustees and asked them to withdraw their objection to having the bridge cross the southern end of the island because we thought, if there must be a bridge here, one crossing the island would not be so detrimental to the whole scene as a steel bridge crossing the water south of Theodore Roosevelt Island and in such close proximity to the Memorial Bridge. The Roosevelt Island trustees
agreed, somewhat reluctantly and as a public service, to the bridge’s crossing the island because they want to cooperate in saving this important landscape. Their action has made it possible to build a bridge as provided in H.R. 4367, if that bill should be enacted into law. But there is no necessity for building such a bridge when the traffic coming from Virginia can be accommodated by a tunnel under the river at approximately the same location and at a cost that would not be excessive, I understand, as compared with the cost of a bridge.
I hope the Congress will take all these matters into consideration and will authorize a tunnel, rather than a bridge, if there must be another river crossing in the neighborhood of Constitution Avenue. By doing so we will preserve intact the beauty of the memorials in that area for which we have great responsibility to the American people now and in the future.
Following the hearing the House subcommittee, on 10 April 1957, voted in favor of a four-lane tunnel. Appearing before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia on 12 April 1957, Chairman Finley reiterated the Commission’s views as previously stated before the House subcommittee. Although the Senate subcommittee voted for a six-lane fixed-span bridge, the full committee voted in favor of a four-lane tunnel, which was approved on 15 July 1957 by the House District Committee. Unable to resolve the conflict between the proponents of the tunnel and those of the bridge, the House of Representatives finally voted to return the matter to the District Committee. Again, Congress adjourned without taking any action.
No legislation to change the location of the bridge or to substitute a tunnel having been enacted, the District Commissioners decided to proceed with the construction of a bridge at Constitution Avenue, as authorized by the act of 30 August 1954 which had been passed by Congress without prior consultation with the Commission of Fine Arts. Engineer Commissioner Col. A. C. Welling, who replaced General Dane, met with the members of the Commission of Fine Arts on 12 September 1957 to discuss this project and explained his intention to push the construction of the bridge and to submit the designs for the bridge to the Commission as specified in the 1954 act. Unilaterally opposed to a bridge in this location, 1,300 feet upstream from the Arlington Memorial Bridge, the members stated that the effect of the bridge and the approach roads to it had
page 69
never been fully understood by the Congress and the public because an accurate model of it had never been shown to them.
Presenting a perspective sketch of the bridge without plans for the connecting roadways, Colonel Welling, members of the District Highway Department, and the architect of the bridge were informed, by the members of the Commission of Fine Arts on 21 November 1957, that the design of the bridge must be studied in relation to all the structures and interchanging roadways of this complex project-—no part of which could be separated or considered except in relation to each other. A three-dimensional study model showing the bridge in the position proposed by the District Commissioners and the connecting roadways on both sides of the river was requested by the members for a detailed study of this important project involving the area containing some of the Nation’s most beautiful memorials.
The designs of the proposed bridge across the Potomac River and of the proposed bridge on 23d Street NW., which would cross Constitution Avenue and deposit a stream of traffic practically at the base of the Lincoln Memorial, were the concern of the Commission of Fine Arts since Public Law 704, 83d Congress (the 1954 act), specifically provided that “plans for any bridge or other structure authorized by this title shall be submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts for advice with respect to the architectural features of any such bridge or structure.” The Commission is charged, under the Executive order of 28 July 1921, with responsibility for advising as to “all important plans for parks and public buildings, constructed by executive departments or the District of Columbia, which in any essential way affect the appearance of the city of Washington or the District of Columbia.”
Renderings of the proposed enlargement of a bridge over Boundary Channel, the first of several subsidiary bridges on the approaches to the Constitution Avenue Bridge, were presented on 8 February 1958 by officials of the District Highway Department to the Commission of Fine Arts, whose members agreed to hold them until complete plans and drawings were submitted for other proposed bridges and approach roads of the entire project.
All plans for the bridge and for approach roads and interchanges at both ends of the
bridge were requested by the Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Fred A. Seaton, in January 1958, under the authority of the statement made by the President on 30 August 1954. The Secretary, having studied the plans received, reported on 20 April 1958 to the President many objections as previously expressed by the Commission of Fine Arts. His report reads:
Applied to the ground involved, the effect of the enabling legislation is to fix the District of Columbia terminal of the proposed bridge at a point not more than 1,200 feet north of Memorial Bridge. It is this freezing of the proposed structure’s location in such close proximity to the Memorial Bridge which has posed the most vexing problem to me and to my associates, because of its resultant demand that space immediately adjoining the Lincoln Memorial be utilized for the location of the bridge approach system.
Focal point of our concern, as to location of approach roads and interchanges, is the area lying directly northwest of the Lincoln Memorial, bounded on the north by Constitution Avenue, on the east by 23d Street, and on the south and west by Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. A series of conferences with District officials resulted in modifications of original plans so as to keep to a minimum the number of approach and interchange structures to be located in the monument area, and to keep to a minimum the height of those structures above grade.
The plans submitted to me on March 25, I am assured by the District Commissioners, represents the minimums engineeringly feasible, both in terms of structural numbers and in heights above grade. Yet, within the relatively compact area and on immediately abutting lands, it will be necessary to place a maze of structures as high as 22 feet above present grade, and involving a number of overhead grade separations.
Grading and construction I am informed, will require the removal of a total of 397 trees—a majority of them 25 years of age or older and constituting original memorial planting—together with the greater portion of an evergreen grove at Ohio Drive and the parkway comprised of hollies, boxwood, magnolias, and various other shrubs.
Discussing the advantages to be gained by the proposal to locate the bridge approximately 2,000 feet north of Memorial Bridge, the Secretary continued:
Insofar as the memorial area is concerned, such a provision would have made possible achievement of these results: Location of virtually all of the approaches in the area north of Constitution Avenue, instead of the critical area south of the avenue; elimination of the need for any overhead grade separations on the parkland immediately flanking the memorial in lieu of the multiplicity of such structures now contemplated; preservation of nearly all of the
page. 70
stately and mature trees and shrubbery now marked for removal in the overall area involved.
This latter proposal, the alternate Constitution Avenue Bridge plan, anticipated a low-level bridge upstream from the present site and utilizing the southern tip of Roosevelt Island, with a possibility of using only Small Island. At one time—and on the assumption that some passageway other than a tunnel would be constructed between Memorial Bridge and Key Bridge—this plan was acceptable to the District Commissioners, Fine Arts Commission, National Capital Planning Commission, Theodore Roosevelt Association, the agencies of this department, a large segment of the Congress, and virtually every other governmental and nongovernmental agency manifesting an interest in the matter.
The Secretary concluded his report :
It is in the light of the foregoing circumstances that I am compelled to seek the support of your office in one last effort to secure from Congress the slight modification of the controlling legislation which is indicated. Such modification should permit construction of a low-level bridge upstream from the presently designated site, a sufficient distance to assure leaving substantially unimpaired the values associated with the Lincoln Memorial and surrounding area; it should provide for utilization of Small Island and a very small portion of the Theodore Roosevelt Island, and should contemplate location of the bulk of the approach system on the District side between Constitution Avenue and E Street, rather than between Constitution Avenue and the Rock Creek-Potomac Parkway.
. . . Failing favorable action by the Congress during this session, and in light of the history of the entire matter and the present traffic situation, we would have no choice but to proceed—however regretfully—as expeditiously as possible to carry out the directive of the Congress within the strict limitations laid down by it.
The President, receiving the Secretary of the Interior’s report, directed the Secretary to prepare, for submission to Congress, legislation authorizing the proposed bridge to be lo-located across Theodore Roosevelt Island. Later, the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing the bridge across the southern part of Theodore Roosevelt Island and the Senate District Committee reported faborably on the bill.
Subsequently the legislation authorizing the bridge across the Island was introduced; representatives of the District of Columbia, Department of Highways, and their consulting architects presented renderings of a prestressed concrete bridge and a steel girder bridge to the Commission of Fine Arts on 22 May 1958. Both designs had been revised as recommended by the Commission in March 1956. A selection by the Commission was requested by Highway Department officials so t hat one design could be developed.
With the assumption that the Senate would approve the pending legislation authorizing a bridge across the Theodore Roosevelt Island, the Commission’s preference expressed in 1956—a masonry bridge in harmony with the Arlington Memorial Bridge had to be recon si dered. After a discussion of architectural features of the design, the members gave approval, in general, to a steel girder bridge with revisions to the piers and roadway. Officials of the Highway Department agreed to make three different sketches of railings, the type of masonry, etc., and submit them at the next meeting. In approving the steel-girder bridge, the Commission stressed that the bridge should be light in appearance and closely resemble the design of the pre-stressed concrete bridge.
The revised designs were presented at the 26 June 1958 meeting of the Commission. Mr. William Hough, architect, and Mr. Frank S. Masters, Sr., engineer, explained the changes which involved the railings and piers. After a detailed discussion of the designs, the members were unwilling to accept the designs and agreed that Chairman Finley and Mr. Orr should meet with officials of the Highway Department for further conferences on the design. A further account of this project will be found in the next report of the Commission of Fine Arts.
page 71
CHAPTER EIGHTH
Landscape Architecture, Parks, Parkways, and Playgrounds
THE GREAT PLAZA
Restoration of the Great Plaza, in the Federal Triangle facing 14th Street u. NW., to its original purpose as a park was discussed at the 5 October 1955 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts. A resolution recommending that the space be made available to the National Park Service for the development of a park was adopted by the Commission and sent to the General Services Administration with copies to the President, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the National Park Service. The resolution follows:
For almost 20 years now the Great Plaza adjacent to the Commerce, Labor, and Post Office Department Buildings has been a blighted outdoor garage in the very heart of the Nation’s Capital almost at the foot of the Washington Monument. Numerous proposals to landscape the area have been made but have not been carried out in spite of the support of two former Presidents of the United States. As an undeveloped area, the General Services Administration continues to lease the Great Plaza to a private concern for carparking purposes. The members of the Commission of Fine Arts consider such use of Government park space to be in the highest degree inappropriate and have today unanimously resolved to recommend to the General Services Administration that efforts be renewed to develop parking-facilities elsewhere and to carry out plans to reclaim the Great Plaza and complete it in harmony with the Straus Memorial Fountain and the architecture of the surrounding buildings.
Mr. Edmund F. Mansure of General Services Administration replied that a development of the Great Plaza would probably be a part of the building plan for Washington to be submitted by General Services Administration to Congress in January 1956. Mr. Mansure’s reply also stressed that this area was surrounded by an intensely occupied business dis
trict which had the most serious lack of parking facilities in Washington. In order to meet this lack, General Services Administration proposed that parking facilities be planned for the Great Plaza area and that such plans should include landscaping.
A copy of the General Services Administration reply, containing this partial solution to the problem, was forwarded to Mr. Harland Bartholomew, Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, with the hope that a review of previous plans would be made by the Planning Commission. The Commission of Fine Arts offered to participate in a joint study of this most important area of the National Capital.
Before a reply was received from the National Capital Planning Commission, Mr. Harry T. Thompson, Superintendent, National Capital Parks, stated his opinion at the 8 December 1955 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts that this property would be retained as an undeveloped area until the buildings planned for completing the north side of the Federal Triangle were erected. When completed, the area would probably be transferred to the National Park Service.
Mr. John Nolen of the National Capital Planning Commission, at the 9 December 1955 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, reviewed the history of the Great Plaza from the time the Federal Triangle buildings were erected until after World War II. After discussing this project, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts agreed that a joint study of the original plan for the Great Plaza and a series of sketches of future plans would be necessary.
page 7;
The Great Plaza in the Federal Triangle facing 14th Street NW.
Before this study was completed, a proposal of the Postmaster General to make a driveway around the inner edge of the hemicycle on 12th Street and to provide additional parking spaces was presented to the Commission on 5 April 1956 by Mr. L. L. Hunter of the General Services Administration. Removal of the grass and paving of the Exedra Court on 13th Street facing the Great Plaza was also requested at this time. Considering this a serious mistake, the members of the Commission advised Mr Hunter to study this project further.
Anxious to work out a plan that would enable the Postmaster General to enter the building directly from his car, to provide a place to park it and to have additional space for several other cars to remain on call, representatives of the Post Office Department visited the Chairman, Mr. David E. Finley, to state the need for a narrow driveway entering from 12th Street and for the space in the Exedra Court facing the Great Plaza. The members of the Commission, hearing these proposals at the 9 May 1956 meeting, emphasized that only as a temporary convenience could this be done, since the completion of the Great Plaza as a park with an underground garage was being stressed. Having agreed on 14 June 1956 to a modified system of parking and access on 12th Street for the Postmaster General and important visitors to the Post Office Depart
ment, the Commission specified the need for a joint effort by all offices involved in this project to work for the restoration of the Great Plaza to a park as originally planned.
The 12th Street hemicycle was developed, according to this agreement, as a special vehicular access for the Postmaster General and parking facilities, without any development reported at the 13 September 1956 meeting for the park in the Great Plaza. No progress for the improvement of the Great Plaza was indicated during the remainder of this report period.
INTERNATIONAL PLAZA
Informal plans for an International Plaza in Washington were brought to the Commission and explained by Mr. Charles Conrad, Associate Director of the National Capital Planning Commission. In the plaza, peoples of other nations would display examples of their cultural and social life. The location suggested for it was the western end of the Central Mall between 17th and 22d Streets NW., Independence Avenue SW., and South Mall Drive including the Reflecting Pool. Use of this site for this purpose was not acceptable to the National Capital Planning Commission, National Capital Parks, or the Commission of Fine Arts attending a joint meeting on 6 April 1956.
page 74
The Great Plaza-Outdoor Garage.
LAND ACQUISITIONS
Problems connected with land acquisitions by the Federal Government in the so-called Northwest Rectangle were studied by a special committee composed of Mr. Fred S. Poorman, Public Buildings Service; Col. Thomas B. Hunter, Assistant Engineer Commissioner: and Mr. Linton R. Wilson, Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts. Recommendations of this committee were:
1.	That the Commission strongly urge the General Services Administration, or other proper authority, to secure funds for the acquisition of remaining land in uncontrolled private ownership and use within the authorized public building area south of E street, between 19th and 23d Streets, in order to complete plan commitments for the Northwest Rectangle.
2.	That the Commission recommend eliminating from the authorized public building area the squares between E and F Street, 19th Street and Virginia Avenue, as being no longer necessary for public buildings sites or to fulfill plan commitments for the Northwest Rectangle.
3.	That the General Services Administration, or
602-604—64--7
other proper authority, be urged to secure authority to acquire the remainder of Square 167, immediately north of the Old State, War and Navy Building, witli a view to acquisition and reservation for future use before development or improvement is undertaken on the westerly portion of this square now owned by the United States.
4.	That an adverse report be submitted on the proposed legislation to construct a new building for the Court of Claims on the present site occupied by the court at the northeast corner of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Each of the recommendations was discussed and approved at the 6 April 1956 joint meeting of the National Capital Planning Commission, National Capital Parks, Public Buildings Service, District of Columbia Government, and the Commission of Fine Arts.
GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY
Acquisitions of Land by National Capital Planning Commission: Plans for a new’ building for the Central Intelligence Agency to be erected in Langley, Va., aroused interest in
page 75
Courtesy Department of Highways and Traffic, District of Columbia.
Par\ Road Bridge over Piney Branch Parkway in Roc\ Cree\ Par\.
completing the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The National Capital Planning Commission’s proposal to purchase the remainder of land along the west side of the Potomac River as far as Great Falls was approved by the Commission of Fine Arts at the 10 October 1956 meeting. Members of the Commission adopted the following resolution:
RESOLVED
That the Commission of Fine Arts approve, and hereby it does approve, the National Capital Planning Commission’s buying the land along the Potomac River on the west side as far as Great Falls for the purpose of completing the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
BRIDGES
Bridges in Rock Creek Park: Drawings for four bridges in Rock Creek Park, presented at the 13 September 1956 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, indicated that all bridges would be rigid-frame, reinforced-concrete structures with aluminum guard rails and ashlarfaced abutments. The members of the Commission approved the designs as presented by Mr. William M. Haussmann, architect for National Capital Parks, for: Beach Drive at Kalmia Road, Beach Drive at Broad Branch Road, Beach Drive at Milkhouse Ford, and Military
Road. The revised design for the Park Road Bridge over Piney Branch Parkway in Rock Creek Park was presented at the 12 September 1957 meeting and approved.
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge: The general design for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge to be erected at Jones Point, Alexandria, Va., was considered by the members of the Commission as being very handsome and was approved on 27 June 1957. Mr. A. Gordon Lorimer, Bureau of Public Roads, Department of Commerce, was the architect.
Upper Spout Run: A model for an arched bridge over Spout Run, the extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway above Key Bridge, was presented and explained by Mr. William M. Haussmann, architect, National Capital Parks, at the 17 October 1957 meeting of the Commission. The design showed a rein-forced-concrete arch spanning a ravine of approximately 225 feet. Approval of the design, in general, was given by the members.
Preliminary designs for five bridges—Donaldson Run, Windy Run, Gulf Branch, Pimmit Run, and High Bridge over Glebe Road—were presented for the Commission’s advice, on 27 March 1958 by Mr. Haussmann. The members approved the designs but expressed the
page 76
Photo by Abbie Rowe. Courtesy National Park Service.
Spout Run Bridge, George Washington Memorial Parkway, above Key Bridge.
desire to review the final drawings before construction started.
Designs for two bridges—Langley Underpass, near the Central Intelligence Agency Building, and Leesburg Pike (route 123) intersection with the George Washington Memorial Parkway—were presented by Mr. Haussmann and approved on 26 June 1958 by the Commission.
WIDENING CONSTITUTION AND
INDEPENDENCE AVENUES
Legislation, S. 2255 and H.R. 6593—84th Congress, was introduced “To authorize and direct the Architect of the Capitol to transfer to the District of Columbia jurisdiction over
certain portions of the U.S. Capitol grounds and other ground belonging to the United States for use in connection with the widening of Independence and Constitution Avenues and the rechannelization of Union Station Plaza.”
The Commission of Fine Arts was not asked to comment formally on the bills, but studied them at the 8 June 1955 meeting when plans to widen Constitution and Independence Avenues were presented by the District Commissioners and by the National Capital Planning Commission. The plan requiring no sacrifice of hind from the southern end of the Capitol Grounds, submitted by the National Capital Planning Commission, was approved by the Commission of Fine Arts.
page 77
CHAPTER N I N E ☆
Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions
SHIPSTEAD-LUCE ACT
ADVISING the Commissioners of the Dis-Z-A trict of Columbia concerning plans JL for private and semipublic structures facing public buildings and parks in specified areas of Washington, so far as such plans relate to height and appearance, color, and texture of the materials of exterior construction, became the duty of the Commission of Fine Arts when Congress passed:
THE SHIPSTEAD-LUCE ACT
Public Law 231—71st Congress—S. 2400
AN ACT
To regulate the height, exterior design, and construction of private and semipublic buildings in certain areas of the National Capital
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in view of the provisions of the Constitution respecting the establishment of the seat of the National Government, the duties it imposed upon Congress in connection therewith, and the solicitude shown and the efforts exerted by President Washington in the planning and development of the Capital City, it is hereby declared that such development should proceed along the lines of good order, good taste, and with due regard to the public interests involved, and a reasonable degree of control should be exercised over the architecture of private or semipublic buildings adjacent to public buildings and grounds of major importance. To this end, hereafter when application is made for permit for the erection or alteration of any building, any portion of which is to front or abut upon the grounds of the Capitol, the grounds of the White House, the portion of Pennsylvania Avenue extending from the Capitol to the White House, Rock Creek Park, the Zoological Park, the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, Potomac Park, The Mall Park System and public buildings adjacent thereto, or abutting upon any street bordering any of said grounds or parks, the plans therefor, so far as they relate to height and appearance, color, and texture of the materials
of exterior construction, shall be submitted by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to the Commission of Fine Arts; and the said commission shall report promptly to said commissioners its recommendations, including such changes, if any, as in its judgment are necessary to prevent reasonably avoidable impairment of the public values belonging to such public building or park; and said commissioners shall take such action as shall, in their judgment, effect reasonable compliance with such recommendation: Provided, That if the said Commission of Fine Arts fails to report its approval or disapproval of such plans, within thirty days, its approval thereof shall be assumed and a permit may be issued.
Sec. 2. Said Commissioners of the District of Columbia, in consultation with the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, as early as practicable after approval of this Act, shall prepare plats defining the areas within which application for building permits shall be submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts for its recommendations.
Approved May 16, 1930.
Regarded as a phase of zoning, the above law is unique in that it applies the principle of esthetics as recognized by the Founding Fathers. The control of the height of private and semipublic buildings in the city of Washington was stated in regulations approved by President Washington on 17 October 1791. The esthetic appearance, as well as the plan for the newly established National Capital, interested President Washington and his Secretary of State, 'Thomas Jefferson, who looked forward to a city of 800,000—a population which was reached during the 1950’s.
Increasing the provisions of the Shipstead-Luce Act to include a larger area of the District of Columbia is a matter that the Commission of Fine Arts leaves to Congress which amended the act on 31 July 1939 to include Lafayette Square—Public Law 248, 76th Congress.
page 79
The object of the Commission of Fine Arts is to carry ont the will of Congress as embodied in this legislation and to exercise such control as would seem reasonable to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Enacted to protect the beauty of the National Capital, the law gives to the Commission of Fine Arts a limited control in designs for private and semipublic building projects within the prescribed area. By conferring with both architects and builders, the Commission aims to procure better buildings and designs in harmony with their environment.
Policies pertaining to the Shipstead-Luce Act and procedures for processing submissions were published in 1938 in pamphlet form for information of architects and builders.
To assist in processing the numerous submissions, a panel of prominent architects of Washington—Mr. Earl V. Gauger, Mr. Louis A. Simon, and Mr. Waldron Faulkner—was appointed by the Commission of Fine Arts on 18 April 1957 to serve for a year. The members of the panel met at the call of the Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts and made recommendations to the Commission of Fine Arts, whose members subsequently sent recommendations to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.
Since the enactment of the Shipstead-Luce Act, more than 2,000 formal submissions have been received by the Commission of Fine Arts from the Commissioners of the District of Columbia through the Office of the Director of Licenses and Inspections. During the period covered by this report, there have been 412 submissions, an increase of 107 submissions over the previous period covering the 6 years from 1948 through 1954. Numerous informal submissions, inquiries, and consultations relating to the administration of this act have not been included in these figures. A few typical submissions are listed below.
st. John’s church, lafayette square
Having previously studied the plans for the restoration and renovation of St. John’s Church, as proposed by Mr. Horace Peaslee, architect, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts viewed the proposed work with Mr. Peaslee at the church on 16 September 1954. The problem of uniting the church and the ad
joining brownstone house, acquired for a parish house, in a successful composition involved changing the transepts of the church and the low connecting line between the buildings. Materials and color were considered the following day. Favorably impressed by the plans, the members of the Commission approved them with the hope that the organ-loft block at the northeast corner would eventually be eliminated by relocating the organ facilities. A letter of 20 September 1954 to Mr. Henderson Gregory, chairman, Building Committee of St. John’s Parish, from Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission of Fine Arts, confirmed the approval and contained the members’ views and recommendations:
The members of the Commission agreed with the point raised by the architect and also Dr. Hudnut, with reference to the fenestration of the south transept, which they thought would be greatly improved by the elimination of the two oversize windows flanking the semicircular arch. If funds are not available to restucco the south side of the transept as well as the west side, then the proposed sunk panels and lintels, we realize, must be retained until conditions permit carrying out these plans.
The Commission approved the side return of the bay cornice and its use on the connecting link between the church and the parish house. It was thought the extension should be stuccoed, as is the case with the east chancel wall, in order that the extension might count as part of the church. The exterior treatment of the Palladian window was approved with the hope that the exterior lighting could be achieved from the parish house wall rather than from the church. The Commission hoped that the “brownstone” parish house could remain as it is at present.
As regards the proposed planting, the Commission thought that this would be helpful in subordinating the corner bay of the church and in reducing the dominance of the Veterans Administration Building. A minor point noted was the sketch for the original square windows in the sides of the transept (only one of which remains), at the east side of the north gallery. If it is not considered feasible to restore the other three, it would be desirable for both windows in the north gallery to conform to the original design of Latrobe.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LIFE UNDERWRITERS
Although it was generally assumed that the land directly north of the American Institute of Pharmacy at the comer of 22d and C Streets NW., would eventually be occupied by the institute, lot 11 on Square 62 had become the property of the National Association of Life
page 80
Underwriters and had been rezoned as first commercial to permit erecting an office building there.
Preliminary sketches prepared by Pereira and Luckman, architects for the association’s building, to be erected on this land, were presented informally to the Commission of Fine Arts on 5 May 1955. The members considered the design unsuitable for a building in this area near the Lincoln Memorial. Since the drawings did not cover aspects of the problem which would enable the members to judge the design in relation to the broad overall relationships that exist in the area, the Commission suggested that the association prepare and submit revised drawings with a blockstudy model showing the general relationships of all buildings in the area.
Prior to acting on an application for a building permit, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, desiring the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts on the design for the association's building, submitted for review working drawings, which were furnished by the organization but without a study model. No recommendation for issuing a building permit could be given, at this 17 February 1956 meeting, without considering the scale of the design in relation to existing buildings, particularly the National Academy of Sciences, the Lincoln Memorial, and the projected State Department addition whose principal entrance would be directly across the street. Further changes in the design were suggested.
Revised drawings for the headquarters building of the National Association of Life Underwriters were approved on 5 April 1956 by the Commission, whose members again questioned the placement of the building in respect to the State Department Building.
The National Capital Planning Commission and Public Buildings Service, the National Association of Life Underwriters, and the American Institute of Pharmacy after many conferences, agreed to request a supplementary appropriation to enable the Public Buildings Service to acquire the Conger Laundry property on the northwest corner of Square 62. Acquisition of the property would permit the association’s building to be moved to the center of the northern perimeter of Square 62— a more harmonious position with the institute’s
building and with the southern facade of the State Department Building.
Appropriations having been granted for this purpose, the Public Buildings Service prepared a draft of an agreement providing for an exchange of land in Square 62 to enable the National Association of Life Underwriters to erect their building in the center of the block facing C Street. Approving the terms of the draft agreement, the members of the Commission of Fine Arts requested that the following sentence be added to the general provisions:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to change the jurisdiction and control of either the National Capital Planning Commission or the Commission of Fine Arts under the General Statutes of the United States as applicable to lands and buildings in the District of Columbia.
The agreement having been reached between the interested groups, the National Association of Life Underwriters employed another architect to change the design for their headquarters building and wished to add another story to the structure which General Services Administration would not approve. The association at this point became undecided about future plans. No further designs were presented to the Commission of Fine Arts during the period of this report.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY
The purchase of land directly north of the American Institute of Pharmacy on Square 62 at the corner of 22d and C Streets NW., by the National Association of Life Underwriters appeared to have nullified previously approved plans of the institute to expand into this area. Dr. Robert P. Fischelis, secretary of the institute, requested guidance from the Commission of Fine Arts, at the 8 June 1955 meeting, on the future plans of the institute. Dr. Fischelis said that the institute was in a quandary whether to prepare plans to expand the institute’s building on the present property or whether it would be possible to expand behind the present building in the event the land could be made available to the institute.
Replying to Dr. Fischelis, Chairman David E. Finley of the Commission stated that he had recently met with representatives of the Public Buildings Service, National Capital
page 81
Planning Commission, and the Bureau of the Budget. They had discussed whether Congress should be asked for funds to purchase the remainder of the square, and they had decided to ask for legislation and a supplementary appropriation to purchase the land. While congressional action was pending, the Commission could give no advice to Dr. Fischelis on the plans of the American Institute of Pharmacy.
Continuing with plans for the future, Dr. Fischelis presented drawings for the projected expansion of the building through extending new wings of limestone at each side of the central marble building. The Commission, at this 9 May 1956 meeting, made suggestions regarding the design and advised that marble should be used throughout.
Preliminary renderings of extensions at the side of the institute building were presented at the 22 May 1958 meeting of the Commission by Mr. Otto Eggers, Jr., architect, successor to John Russell Pope whose firm designed the original building. Being considered one of the finest architectural designs in Washington, the Commission thought the beauty of the original structure should not be lost in the addition. A preference was ex
pressed for a scheme showing a basement with one story rather than a basement with two stories. The members of the Commission considered that the original concept of the design was preserved to the greatest extent possible in the plan presented and approved at the 26 June 1958 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts.
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS---HEADQUARTERS
BUILDING
Plans for the proposed headquarters building of the Veterans of Foreign Wars to be erected at 315-327 1st Street NE., as designed by Holabird, Root & Burgee, architects, were presented to the Commission of Fine Arts at the 9 November 1955 meeting, by Mr. William Holabird and representatives of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The design of the building was approved, in general, with recommendations that the height of the first floor be raised to create a more monumental appearance; and that the retaining wall and planting features in front of the building be restudied.
After the location for the building was changed to Maryland Avenue and 2d Street NE., a new design appropriate to its use and site was approved on 19 December 1957.
Veterans of Foreign Wars—Headquarters Building, Maryland Avenue and 2d Street NE.
page 82
Addition to Chamber of Commerce Building, 1615 H Street NW.
602-604—64----8
page 83
PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE CO. BUILDING
A preliminary design for a white marble office building for use by the Peoples Life Insurance Co. as a headquarters building at 601 New Hampshire Avenue NW., was presented by Mr. George W. Petticord, Jr., of Mills, Petticord & Mills, architects. The members of the Commission of Fine Arts expressed their general approval of the initial sketch at the 14 June 1956 meeting. A further development of the design submitted on 14 September 1956 was approved. The final design presented in model form was approved by the Commission of Fine Arts on 19 November 1956.
st. John’s college high school
After reviewing a series of drawings for the various school buildings to be located on Military Road at 27th Street NW., as prepared by Waldon & Madden, architects, the members of the Commission gave their final approval at the 14 June 1956 meeting.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS BUILDING OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS
Preliminary plans for the national headquarters Building of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., to be erected at 20th and E Streets NW., were presented to the Commission of Fine Arts on 13 December 1956 by Mr. Earl V. Gauger, of Chatelain, Gauger & Nolan, architects. The building was designed to conform, in general, with the District of Columbia chapter of the American National Red Cross Building standing to the west across 20th Street NW.
Recommendations of the Commission that the cooling tower and other roof protuberances be incorporated in a penthouse were accepted
by the architects, and drawings of the revised cooling tower were reviewed and considered satisfactory at the 24 January 1957 meeting.
VANGUARD COMPUTING CENTER
Preliminary sketches for the proposed remodeling of the one-story building at 615 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., for use by the International Business Machines Corporation as the Vanguard Computing Center, indicated the desire of the corporation to maintain a uniformity of design throughout the long facade. In order to maintain as much harmony as possible in the appearance of Pennsylvania Avenue, the Commission of Fine Arts on 13 December 1956 recommended that the central motif of the proposed building be simplified and that limestone be employed in the remodeling of the existing front. A revised plan, submitted 24 January 1957, was an improvement, and was approved by the Commission.
NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION BUILDING
Preliminary drawings of the proposed National Guard Association Building to be erected at Massachusetts Avenue and North Capitol Street NW., were presented by Mr. B. D. Elam and Mr. C. P. Callmer, of Juste-ment, Elam & Darby, architects, and approved on 24 January 1957 by the Commission of Fine Arts.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING
A plan for a proposed four-story addition to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Building at 1615 H Street NW., to be built to the north side of the existing structure, as prepared by Chatelain, Gauger & Nolan, architects and engineers, was approved at the 18 April 1957 meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts.
page 84
CHAPTER T E N ☆
Old Georgetown Act Submissions
CC X'^EORGE TOWN,” founded in the I year 1751 and located at the head J of navigation on the Potomac River, became a thriving colonial port in the years after its founding and had a population of about 5,000 when Congress moved to the “Federal City” in 1800. Georgetown thus became a part of the District of Columbia.
Various boundaries of Georgetown have existed during the two centuries since its founding when the town lay west of Rock Creek Park and mostly south of the present N Street. Georgetown University, founded in 1789, has always been regarded as part of the area. Extension of the boundaries west of 35th Street was made during the 1820’s by Major Cox to include his own house. Georgetown has been considered to extend, at times, north to Calvert Street and to Massachusetts Avenue.
Numerous late colonial and Federal houses were built in this area by Georgetown families, some of which stand today and help to give the town an architectural character and distinction of its own. Among them are Stoddard House, the home of the first Secretary of the Navy; Dumbarton House, now the national headquarters building of the Colonial Dames of America; Evermay; the Bodisco House; and Tudor Place, where General Lafayette was entertained on his visit to the United States in 1824.
The demolition of buildings with historical and architectural value, such as the Corcoran House, the Francis Scott Key House, and the Union Tavern which has sheltered many persons of importance in our early history, caused great concern among the residents of Georgetown who thought something should be done to preserve the Colonial and Federal architecture as well as to prevent inconsistencies in
construction or in the remodeling of substantial brick buildings that were authentic examples of early Federal architecture. For these reasons, Congress passed:
OLD GEORGETOWN ACT
Public Law 808—81st Congress—H.R. 7(570
AN ACT
TO regulate the height, exterior design, and construction of private and semipublic buildings in the Georgetown area of the National Capital
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby created in the District of Columbia a district known as “Old Georgetown’’ which is bounded on the east by Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway from the Potomac River to the north boundary of Dumbarton Oaks Park, on the north by the north boundary of Dumbarton Oaks Park, Whitehaven Street and Whitehaven Parkway to Thirty-fifth Street south along the middle of Thirty-fifth Street to Reservoir Road, west along the middle of Reservoir Road to Archbold Parkway, on the west by Archbold Parkway from Reservoir Road to the Potomac River, on the south by the Potomac River to the Rock Creek Parkway.
Sec. 2. In order to promote the general welfare and to preserve and protect the places and areas of historic interest, exterior architectural features and examples of the type of architecture used in the National Capital in its initial years, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, before issuing any permit for the construction, alteration, reconstruction, or razing of any building within said Georgetown district described in Section 1 shall refer the plans to the National Commission of Fine Arts for a report as to the exterior architectural features, height, appearance, color, and texture of the materials of exterior construction which is subject to public view from a public highway. The National Commission of Fine Arts shall report promptly to said Commissioners of the District of Columbia its recommendations, including such charges, if any, as in the judgment of the Commission are necessary ami desirable to preserve the historic value of said George-
page 85
Canal, Old Georgetown.
town district. The said Commissioners shall take such actions as in their judgment are right, and proper in the circumstances: Provided, That, if the said Commission of Fine Arts fails to submit a report on such plans within forty-five days, its approval thereof shall be assumed and a permit may be issued.
Sec. 3. In carrying out the purpose of this Act, the Commission of Fine Arts is hereby authorized to appoint a committee of three architects, who shall serve as a board of review without expense to the United States and who shall advise the Commission of Fine Arts, in writing, regarding designs and plans referred to it.
Sec. 4. Said Commissioners of the District of Columbia, with the aid of the National Park Service and of the National Park and Planning Commission, shall make a survey of the “Old Georgetown” area for the use of the Commission of Fine Arts and of the building permit office of the District of Columbia, such survey to be made at a cost not exceeding $8,000, which amount is hereby authorized.
Sec 5. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as superseding or affecting in any manner any Act of Congress heretofore enacted relating to
the alteration, repair, or demolition of insanitary or unsafe dwellings or other structures.
Approved September 22, 1950.
The idea of an architectural review was not new. Public Law 808 was patterned after the ordinances for Charleston, S.C., and Alexandria, Va., which provide for a board of architectural review for certain areas of these cities, as did a Lousiana State constitutional provision for New Orleans. Even in the District of Columbia efforts in this direction had been made by a committee of architects who for 10 years, 1924 to 1934, had given voluntary, advisory services in a “clinic” at the District Building, Permit Department.
The members of a “committee of three architects,” as authorized in section 3 of Public Law 808, appointed by the Commission of Fine Arts to “serve as a board of review,” are known as the Board of Architectural Consultants. These well-qualified architects, who de
page 86
vote one afternoon each week and serve without remuneration, for the period of this report were:
1954-55 Mr. Walter M. Macomber, an original member.
Mr. Lorenzo S. Winslow, an original member.
Mr. Walter G. Peter, Jr., successor to Mr. William Dewey Foster, an original member.
1955-56 Mr. Walter G. Peter, Jr.
Miss Gertrude Sawyer, successor to Mi-. Macomber.
Mr. Louis A. Simon, successor to Mr. Winslow.
1956-57 Mr. Walter G. Peter, Jr.
Mr. Walter M. Macomber, successor to Miss Sawyer.
Mr. Louis A. Simon.
1957-58 Mr. Walter G. Peter, Jr.
Mr. Walter M. Macomber.
Mr. Henry H. Saylor, successor to Mr.
Simon.
22 May 1958 Mr. John B. Coughlin was appointed successor to Mr. Peter.
The Board of Architectural Consultants recommended on 17 September 1954 to the Commission of Fine Arts that a survey be made of the area and a plan drawn to show the date of each building and to indicate whether it could be razed, altered, etc. The sum of $8,000 for a survey of the “Old Georgetown” area was authorized by Public Law 808 to assist the board and the Commission of Fine Arts in carrying out the provisions of the act. The need for such a survey was increasingly urgent to aid the Commission and the board in determining which buildings should be preserved. The desire of some owners and others to raze and obliterate buildings, whose preservation was the intent of the law, made it imperative that some definite and official standard be set to serve as a basis of judgment in considering such applications. The board’s recommendation was brought to the attention of the District Commissioners, but no appropriation for a survey was made in the period of this report.
From the beginning, the Board of Architectural Consultants decided to consider each submission on its own merits. A procedure for processing submissions was established by the Commission whereby all actions taken on the submissions received and processed between
meetings of the Commission of the Fine Arts would be reviewed and confirmed at the next meeting of the Commission.
During the fiscal years 1955 through 1958, the board processed 1,310 cases, of which 1,255 were approved.
Interest in and understanding of the concept of the “Old Georgetown Act” have been expressed by the business community in the two Esso and Amoco gas stations on M Street, the building of the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., the Safeway market, the Wilson Sporting Goods Co., the Royal McBee Corp., and the Friden Calculator Co. Examples of early buildings remodeled well by business interests may be found in the Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Association; restaurants such as Billy Martin's Carriage House and the Town House, all on Wisconsin Avenue; the Galliher Lumber Co. and Madam Viboud’s Hand Laundry on 30th Street; and the Dorothy Stead Dress Shop on () Street.
The Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown has sponsored awards of merit for construction or remodeling establishments to conform with the architectural traditions of the late 18th and early 19th-century town. Panels of Washington architects acted as judges and awarded certificates to—
1955 Krupsaw’s Antique shop, 1420 Wisconsin Avenue. Architects, Clark-Yarus Associates.
Honorable mention: Safeway Store, 1855 Wisconsin Avenue. Architect, Arthur P. Starr.
Honorable mention: Georgetown Dial Center, C. & I’. Telephone Co., 1045 Wisconsin Avenue. Architect, Leon Chatelain, Jr. 1956 Kerr & Co., Inc., display window 1640 Wisconsin Avenuue. Architects, Deigert & Yerkes.
Barbershop, owned by Mrs. Samuel Latona 3270 S Street. Architects, Patterson & Worland.
1957 Royal McBee Corp., 1700 Wisconsin Avenue. Architect, Arthur L. Anderson.
Esso Standard Oil Co. filling station, 3327 M Street. Architect, Ernest W. Syme.
Allen Mitchell Co., 1629 Wisconsin Avenue. Architect, John Marcus Hallett.
1958 Friden Calculator Sales Agency, 1724 Wisconsin Avenue. Architect, Clifton B. White.
The concepfs of Public Law 808 and the treatment of an area as a whole have been favored in modern zoning and in court decisions on redevelopment. Upholding the
page 87
District Redevelopment Act, the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision, November 1954,said:
The concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive. . . . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as sanitary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. (Berman v. Parker et al., 348 U.S. 98.)
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have been authorized by Public Law 808 to take such actions as in their judgment “are right and proper in the circumstances” on the recommendations of the Commission of Fine Arts, which are based on the advice of the Board of Architectural Consultants. The
number of cases where recommendations have been overruled by the District Commissioners has been comparatively small. Two such overrulings, however, resulted in the razing of structures which the Old Georgetown law was intended to preserve—
2732 Dumbarton Avenue NW. (Lot 827, Square 1236) : Two-story brick dwelling house and attic, circa 1790, used as a lodge. Permit to raze issued July 1954.
3601-3603 O Street NW. (Lots 823, 824, Square 1248) : Two 2-story wood frame houses, circa 1850’s, Georgetown University property. Permit to raze issued October 1955. Condemned as unsanitary.
Protected by Public Law 808, Georgetown has become synonymous with historic restoration and preservation and is a major asset and attraction in the Nation’s Capital.
1058-1070 30th Street NW. (front view after remodeling).
page 88
1058—1070 30th Street NW. (rear view ajter remodeling}.
page 89
CHAPTER ELEVENS
Administration, Budget, Etc.
THE Commission of Fine Arts receives its funds for expenses as part of the Department of the Interior appropriation bill, by authority of Executive Order 6166 dated 10 June 1933. The act of Congress, approved 17 May 1910, establishing the Commission of Fine Arts, authorized a yearly appropriation of not exceeding $10,000. From 1947 through 1954, Congress permitted appropriations in excess of $10,000. To eliminate this discrepancy in 1955, the Commission drafted bills amending the 1910 act to abolish the budget limitation. In the Senate the bill was amended to raise the authorized limitation
Tables of estimates and appropriations
(For estimates and appropriations of prior years, see former reports of the Commission of Fine Arts)
Fiscal year ending 30 June-	Estimate submitted	Amount appropriated	Amount expended	Unexpended balance
1955	$21, 200	$21, 200	$20, 586	$614
1956			22, 200	22, 200	21, 696	504
1957			31, 000	31, 000	30, 743	257
1958		1 35, 625	35, 625	35, 618	7
1 Pay increase.
Table of expenditures
Item	1955	1956	1957	195S
Travel expenses	 Personal services	 Communication services	 Printing and reproduction	:	 Other contractual services	 Supplies and materials	 Equipment	 Government’s share of retirement cost_ Taxes and assess-	$2, 687 13, 361 473 431 1, 841 456 1, 337	$2, 601 14, 447 675 270 2, 014 280 1, 391	$2, 769 21, 490 704 301 2, 122 786 2, 571	$2, 660 25, 783 862 583 2, 284 630 1, 199 1, 617
		18		
Totals					
	20, 586	21, 696	30, 743	35, 618
from $10,000 to $35,000. The House of Representatives concurred with the Senate's recommendation and on 25 May 1955, Public Law 45—84th Congress was approved by the President.
Number of submissions considered by the Commission of Fine Arts for fiscal years 1955^58
Fiscal year	Cases received	Approved	Disapproved
1955			
Shipstead-Luce Act, ap-			
proved 16 May 1930—	97	95	2
Old Georgetown Act, approved 22 September 1950		250	236	14
Commission of Fine Arts Act, approved 17 May 1910		88	(9	(9
Total		435	331	16
' 1956			
Shipstead-Luce Act		96	90	6
Old Georgetown Act		388	378	10
Commission of Fine Arts Act		147	(9	(9
Total		631	468	26
1957			
Shipstead-Luce Act		123	103	20
Old Georgetown Act		372	357	15
Commission of Fine Arts Act		193	(9	(9
Total		688	460	35
1958			
Shipstead-Luce Act		96	77	19
Old Georgetown Act		300	284	16
Commission of Fine Arts Act		210	(9	(9
	_ _ 606	361	35
			
i Total includes submissions such as requests for legislative reports, informal reviews, etc., where distinction between approval and disapproval does not apply.
page 91
MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS
15 June 1910-14 June 1914
Daniel H. Burnham, architect; appointed Chairman, died 1 June 1912.
Thomas Hastings, architect.
Cass Gilbert, architect.
Frederick Law Olmsted, landscape architect.
Charles Moore, layman-author.
Daniel Chester French, sculptor; appointed Chairman 5 July 1912.
Francis D. Millet, painter; died 15 April 1912.
Edwin H. Blashfield, painter; appointed 31 May 1912 to fill vacancy caused by the death of Francis D. Millet.
Peirce Anderson, architect; appointed 5 July 1912 to fill vacancy caused by the death of Daniel H. Burnham.
Secretaries
Col. Spencer Cosby: U.S. Army, detailed from 15 J une 1910 until 1 October 1913; served until detailed as military attache at the American Embassy, Paris, France.
Capt. U. S. Grant III, U.S. Army, Acting Secretary, 1910-12.
Col. William W. Harts, U.S. Army; detailed on 1 October 1913.
15 June 1914-14 June 1918
Daniel Chester French, sculptor. Term and chairmanship continued; resigned 15 June 1915.
Charles. Moore, layman-author; reappointed 15 June 1914; elected Chairman 29 July 1915.
Thomas Hastings, architect; reappointed 15 June 1914. Term of service expired 21 September 1917.
Cass Gilbert, architect; reappointed 15 June 1914; resigned 20 September 1916.
Frederick Law Olmsted, landscape architect; reappointed 15 June 1914.
Edwin H. Blashfield, painter. Term of service expired 1 September 1916.
Peirce Anderson, architect. Term of service expired 1 September 1916.
Herbert Adams, sculptor; appointed 15 June 1915 to fill vacancy caused by resignation of Mr. French.
Charles A. Platt, architect; appointed 1 September 1916 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Anderson.
J. Alden Weir, painter; appointed 1 September 1916 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Blashfield.
William Mitchell Kendall, architect; appointed 20 September 1916 to fill vacancy caused by resignation of Mr. Gilbert.
John Russell Pope, architect; appointed 21 September 1917 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Hastings.
Secretaries
Col. William W. Harts, U.S. Army, served until detailed to oversea assignment on 24 September 1917.
Col. C. S. Ridley, U.S. Army, detailed on 24 September 1917.
15 June 1918-14 June 1922
Charles Moore, layman-author; reappointed for third term 11 September 1918; reelected Chairman, 4 October 1918.
Frederick Law Olmsted, landscape architect.
Term of service expired 11 September 1918.
Herbert Adams, sculptor. Term of service expired 14 June 1919.
Charles A. Platt, architect. Term of service expired 30 August 1920.
J. Alden Weir, painter; died 8 December 1919.
William Mitchell Kendall, architect. Term of service expired 20 September 1920.
John Russell Pope, architect. Term continued.
James L Greenleaf, landscape architect; appointed 11 September 1918 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Olmsted.
James E. Fraser, sculptor; appointed 7 May 1920 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Adams.
Louis Ayres, architect; appointed 19 February 1921 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Kendall.
Henry Bacon, architect; appointed 21 February 1921 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Platt.
William Sargeant Kendall, painter; appointed 10 April 1920 to fill vacancy caused by death of Mr. Weir; resigned 23 February 1921.
H. Siddons Mowbray, painter; appointed 24 February 1921 to fill vacancy caused by resignation of Mr. Kendall.
Secretaries
Col. C. S. Ridley, U.S. Army, served until 31 March 1921.
Lt. Col. C. O. Sherrill, U.S. Army, assigned 31 March 1921; served until 30 June 1922.
15 June 1922-14 June 1926
Charles Moore, layman-author; reappointed for fourth term 3 November 1922; reelected Chairman for third time 18 December 1922.
John Russell Pope, architect. Term of service expired 19 September 1922.
James L. Greenleaf, landscape architect; reappointed 1 February 1923.
James E. Fraser, sculptor. Term expired 6 May 1924.
Louis Ayres, architect. Term expired 19 February 1924.
Henry Bacon, architect; died 16 February 1924.
H. Siddons Mowbray, painter. Term continued.
Milton B. Medary, Jr., architect; appointed 2 December 1922 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Pope.
William Adams Delano, architect; appointed 8 April 1924 to fill vacancy caused by death of Mr. Bacon.
page 92
Lorado Taft, sculptor; appointed 14 February 1925 to All vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Fraser.
Abram Garfield, architect; appointed 2 November 1925 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Ayres.
Secretaries
Lt. Col. C. O. Sherrill, U.S. Army, served until 30 June 1922.
H. P. Caemmerer, appointed 30 June 1922.
15 June 1926-14 June 1930
Charles Moore, layman-author; reappointed for fifth term 9 December 1926; reelected Chairman for fourth term 6 January 1927.
James L. Greenleaf, landscape architect. Term expired 31 January 1927.
H. Siddons Mowbray, painter; died 13 January 1928.
Milton B. Medary, Jr., architect. Term expired 1 December 1926.
William Adams Delano, architect. Term expired 7 April 1928.
Lorado Taft, sculptor. Term expired 13 February 1929.
Abram Garfield, architect. Term continued.
Benjamin W. Morris, architect; appointed 7 January 1927 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Medary.
Ferruccio Vitale, landscape architect; appointed 28 September 1927 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Greenleaf.
Ezra Winter, painter; appointed 6 June 1928 to fill vacancy caused by death of Mr. Mowbray.
John W. Cross, architect; appointed 25 October 1928 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Delano.
Adolph A. Weinman, sculptor; appointed 23 February 1929 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Taft.
Secretary: H. P. Caemmerer. Term continued from 1922 appointment.
15 June 1930-14 June 1934
Charles Moore, layman-author; reappointed for sixth term 8 December 1930; reelected Chairman for fifth term 6 January 1931.
Abram Garfield, architect. Term of service expired 1 November 1929.
Benjamin W. Morris, architect. Term expired 6 January 1931.
John W. Cross, architect. Term expired 24 October 1932.
Ferruccio Vitale, landscape architect. Term expired 27 September 1931.
Adolph A. Weinman, sculptor. Term expired 22 February 1933.
Ezra Winter, painter. Term expired 5 June 1932.
John L. Mauran, architect; appointed 22 October 1930 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Garfield ; died 23 September 1933.
Egerton Swartwout, architect; appointed 10 August 1931 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Morris.
Gilmore D. Clarke, landscape architect; appointed 21 April 1932 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Vitale.
Lee Lawrie, sculptor; appointed 18 January 1933 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Weinman.
John Mead Howells, architect; appointed 25 January 1933 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Cross.
Eugene F. Savage, painter; appointed 11 February 1933 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Winter.
Charles A. Coolidge, architect; appointed 14 December 1933 to fill vacancy caused by death of Mr. Mauran.
Secretary: H. P. Caemmerer. Term continued from 1922 appointment.
15 June 1934-14 June 1938
Charles Moore, layman-author; reappointed for seventh term 18 December 1934; reelected Chairman for sixth term 18 January 1935; resigned as Chairman 29 September 1937.
Gilmore D. Clarke, landscape architect; reappointed 18 April 1936; elected Chairman 29 September 1937.
Egerton Swartwout, architect. Term expired 9 August 1935.
Lee Lawrie, sculptor. Term expired 17 January 1937.
John Mead Howells, architect. Term expired 24 January 1937.
Eugene F. Savage, painter; reappointed 26 January 1937.
Charles A. Coolidge, architect; died 1 April 1936.
Charles L. Borie, Jr., architect; appointed 17 February 1936 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Swartwout.
Henry R. Shepley, architect; appointed 28 April 1936, to fill vacancy caused by death of Mr. Coolidge.
William F. Lamb, architect; appointed 19 January 1937 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Howells.
Paul Manship, sculptor. Appointed 22 January 1937 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Lawrie.
Secretary: H. P. Caemmerer. Term continued from 1922 appointment.
15 June 1938-14 June 1942
Gilmore D. Clarke, landscape architect; reappointed and reelected Chairman 18 April 1940.
Charles Moore, layman-author. Term expired 18 January 1940 after 30 years of service with the Commission of Fine Arts, 22 years as Chairman.
Eugene F. Savage, painter. Term expired 25 January 1941.
Charles L. Borie, Jr., architect. Term expired 16 February 1940.
page 93
Henry R. Shepley, architect. Term of service expired 27 April 1940.
William F. Lamb, architect; reappointed 24 March 1941.
Paul Manship, sculptor. Term of service expired 21 January 1941.
Edward Bruce, layman-art critic; appointed 19 January 1940 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Moore.
Paul P. Cret, architect; appointed 25 April 1940 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Borie.
John A. Holabird, architect; appointed 3 May 1940 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Shepley.
Henry V. Poor, painter; appointed 29 March 1941 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Savage.
Ralph Stackpole, sculptor; appointed 6 October 1941 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Manship.
Secretary:	H. P. Caemmerer. Term continued
from 1922 appointment.
15 June 1942-14 June 1946
Gilmore D. Clarke, landscape architect; reappointed and reelected Chairman 16 March 1945.
William F. Lamb, architect. Term expired 23 March 1945.
Edward Bruce, layman-art critic; died 26 January 1943.
Paul P. Cret, architect, reappointed 17 March 1945; died 8 September 1945.
John A. Holabird, architect; reappointed 17 March 1945; died 4 May 1945.
Henry V. Poor, painter. Term expired 28 March 1945.
Ralph Stackpole, sculptor. Term expired 5 October 1945.
David E. Finley, layman-director of the National Gallery of Art; appointed 11 May 1943 to fill vacancy caused by death of Mr. Bruce.
L. Andrew Reinhard, architect; appointed 30 August 1945 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Lamb.
William T. Aldrich, architect; appointed 30 August 1945 to fill vacancy caused by death of Mr. Holabird.
Maurice Sterne, painter; appointed 4 September 1945 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Poor.
Frederick V. Murphy, architect; appointed 30 November 1945 to fill vacancy caused by death of Mr. Cret.
Lee Lawrie, sculptor; reappointed 5 December 1945 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr Stackpole.
Secretary: H. P. Caemmerer. Term continued from 1922 appointment.
15 June 1946-14 June 1950
Gilmore D. Clarke, landscape architect; Chairman. Term expired 15 March 1949.
David E. Finley, layman-Director of the National Gallery of Art; reappointed 16 May 1947.
L. Andrew Reinhard, architect. Term expired 30 August 1949.
William T. Aldrich, architect. Term continued.
Maurice Sterne, painter. Term expired 3 September 1949.
Frederick V. Murphy, architect. Term expired 29 November 1949.
Lee Lawrie, sculptor. Term expired 4 December 1949.
Secretary: H. P. Caemmerer. Term continued from 1922 appointment.
15 June 1950-14 June 1954
Gilmore D. Clarke, landscape architect; Chairman. Term continued until 25 June 1950.
David E. Finley, layman-Director of the National Gallery of Art; elected Chairman 20 July 1950; reappointed 4 June 1951.
L. Andrew Reinhard, architect. Served until successor appointed.
William Aldrich, architect. Term expired 29 August 1950.
Maurice Sterne, painter. Served until successor appointed.
Frederick V. Murphy, architect. Served until successor appointed.
Lee Lawrie, sculptor. Served until successor appointed.
Edward F. Neild, Sr., architect; appointed 26 June 1950 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Aldrich.
Felix W. de Weldon, sculptor; appointed 26 June 1950 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Lawrie.
Joseph Hudnut, architect; appointed 28 June 1950 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Clarke.
Pietro Belluschi, architect; appointed 30 June 1950 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Reinhard.
Elbert Peets, landscape architect and city planner; appointed 4 August 1950 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Murphy.
George Biddle, painter; appointed 8 August 1950 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Sterne; resigned 19 August 1951; reappointed to succeed himself 20 January 1953.
Secretary: H. P. Caemmerer. Term continued from 1922 appointment.
15 June 1954-14 June 1958
David E. Finley, layman-Director of the National Gallery of Art; reelected Chairman 15 March 1955 and reappointed 25 May 1955.
Edward F. Neild, Sr., architect. Term expired 25 June 1954.
Felix W. de Weldon, sculptor; reappointed 28 February 1955.
Joseph Hudnut, architect. Term expired 27 February 1955.
page 94
Pietro Belluschi, architect. Term expired 29 June 1954.
Elbert Peets, landscape architect; reappointed 2S February 1955; resigned 22 April 1958.
George Biddle, painter, resignation effective 28 February 1955.
William G. Perry, architect; appointed 28 February 1955 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Hudnut.
Emily Muir, painter; appointed 1 March 1955 to fill vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Biddle.
Wallace K. Harrison, architect; appointed 4 March 1955 to fill the vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Neild, Sr.
Douglas W. Orr, architect; appointed 8 March 1955 to fill the vacancy caused by termination of service of Mr. Belluschi.
Michael Rapuano, landscape architect; appointed 10 June 1958 to fill vacancy caused by resignation of Mr. Peets.
Secretaries
H. P. Caemmerer, retired 24 June 1954, after 32 years of service with the Commission.
Linton R. Wilson, appointed Secretary 25 June 1954.
Public Law 181—61st Congress
AN ACT
Establishing a Commission of Fine Arts
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a permanent Commission of Fine Arts is hereby created to be composed of seven well-qualified judges of the fine arts, who shall be appointed by the President, and shall serve for a period of 4 years each, and until their successors are appointed and qualified. The President shall have authority to fill all vacancies. It shall be the duty of such Commission to advise upon the location of statues, fountains, and monuments in the public squares, streets, and parks in the District of Columbia, and upon the selection of models for statues, fountains, and monuments, erected under the authority of the United States and upon selection of artists for the execution of the same. It shall be the duty of the officers charged by law to determine such questions in each case to call for such advice. The foregoing provisions of this act shall not apply to the Capitol Building of the United States and the building of the Library of Congress.
The Commission shall also advise generally upon questions of art when required to do so by the President, or by any committee of either House of Congress. Said Commission shall have a secretary and such other assistance as the Commission may authorize, and the members of the Commission shall each be paid actual expenses in going to and returning from Washington to attend meetings of said Commission and while attending the same.
Sec. 2. That to meet the expenses made neces
sary by this act an expenditure of not exceeding $10,000 a year is hereby authorized.
Approved May 17, 1910.
Public Law 45—84th Congress
AN ACT
To amend the act establishing a Commission of Fine Arts
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Act entitled “An Act establishing a Commission of Fine Arts.” approved May 17, 1910 (40 U.S.C., secs. 104-106), is amended to read as follows :
“Sec. 2. That to meet the expenses made necessary by this Act an expenditure of not exceeding $35,000 a year is hereby authorized.”
Approved May 25, 1955.
By Executive order dated 25 October 1910, President Taft directed that—
Plans for no public buildings to be erected in the District of Columbia for the General Government shall be hereafter finally approved by the officer duly authorized until after such officer shall have submitted the plans to the Commission of Fine Arts, created under the act of Congress of May 17, 1910, for its comment and advice.
On 2 February 1912, President Taft directed the Commission to advise the officer in charge of public buildings and grounds in regard to the improvement of any of the grounds in the city of Washington under his charge, whenever such advice is asked for by that officer. That officer [now the Director of the National Park Service] uniformly consults the Commission regarding details of the development of all the parks and reservations under his control.
On 28 November 1913, President Wilson issued the following Executive order:
It is hereby ordered that whenever new structures are to be erected in the District of Columbia under the direction of the Federal Government which affect in any important way the appearance of the city, or whenever questions involving matters of art and with which the Federal Government is concerned are to be determined, final action shall not be taken until such plans and questions have been submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts, designated under the act of Congress May 17. 1910, for comment and advice.
Ou 28 July 1921, President Harding issued the following Executive order:
It is hereby ordered that essential matters relating to the design of medals, insignia, and coins produced
page 95
by the executive departments, also the designs of statues, fountains, and monuments, and all important plans for parks and all public buildings, constructed by executive departments or the District of Columbia, which in any essential way affect the appearance of the city of Washington or the District of Columbia, shall be submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts for advice as to the merits of such designs before the executive officer having charge of the same shall approve thereof.
In creating the National Capital Park Commission by act of 6 June 1924, Congress provided that the selection of lands to be acquired thereto or thereunder shall have the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts. The National Capital Park Commission was succeeded by the
National Capital Park and Planning Commission established by Congress 30 April 1926, and then by the National Capital Planning Commission on 19 July 1952. During the years all proposed purchases have been approved. The Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission have acted harmoniously in the work of developing the District of Columbia according to carefully devised plans for parks, playgrounds, and highways.
David E. Finley, Chairman.
L. R. Wilson, Secretary and Administrative Officer.
page 96
INDEX
A Page
Abramovitz, Max, Architect..................... 20
Acquisitions of Land:
Approved.................................. 75,96
Recommended.................................. 75
Act Establishing a Commission of Fine Arts. . .	95
Administration................................. 91
Advisory Committee on Lighting Standards....	55
Advisory Committee on Stamps................... 42
Advisory Committee on Tomb of Unknown Soldier....................................... 32
Advisory Panel on Performing Arts............... 4
American Battle Monuments Commission. . 26, 29, 33
(See also American Military Cemetery)
American Institute of Architects, Centennial Celebration.................................... 8
American Institute of Pharmacy................. 81
American Military Cemetery: Hamm, Luxembourg.............................. 28
Honolulu, Hawaii............................. 30
American National Red Cross Memorial........	36
Design for................................... 37
Site of...................................... 37
American Planning and Civic Association.....	5
American Veterans Plaque, Arlington Amphitheater ...................................... 46
Anacostia Freeway.............................. 57
Anacostia Senior High	School Addition.......... 51
Architectural Consultants, Old Georgetown, Board of................................ 55,86,87
Arlington National Cemetery.................... 32
Art Exhibitions, recommendations of National
Academy of Design............................ 41
Atomic Energy Commission,	Medals.............. 47
Auditorium Commission..........................  3
Auditorium of Fine Arts, Howard	University. .	22
Awards, Progressive Citizens Association of
Georgetown................................... 87
B
Bain, William J., Architect.................... 19
Bartholomew, Harland, Chairman, National
Capital Planning Commission.................. 73
Battery Park, New York City, Memorial in. . . .	26
Bedford, Eric, Chief Architect of Ministry of
Works, London................................ 24
Belluschi, Pietro, Architect,	member	of Commission of Fine Arts	 1
Bennett, Richard, Architect.................... 19
Beuttler, John F., Architect................... 25
Bible, Hon. Alan, United States	Senator.....	7
Biddle, George, Painter, member of Commission of Fine Arts................................... 1
Page
Birley, Oswald, Painter......................... 43
Blumenthal, Herman, Sculptor.................... 38
Board of Architectural Consultants, Old Georgetown .................................... 55,	86, 87
Board of Trade................................... 5
Boks, Joost W. C., Engineer of the Netherlands. 38
Bolivar, Simon, Statue of: Landscape plans.................................. 40
Model of...................................... 40
Site of....................................... 40
Bolton, Hon. Oliver	P.,	Member of Congress. . .	10
Boundaries of Georgetown........................ 85
Brett, William H., Director of the Mint, Department of the Treasury....................... 45
Bridges, designs for:
Beach Drive (3) in Rock Creek Park........	76
Boundary Channel.............................. 70
Donaldson Run................................. 76
Gulf Branch................................... 76
High Bridge over Glebe Road................... 76
Langley Underpass............................. 77
Leesburg Pike (route 123)..................... 77
Military Road in Rock Creek Park.............. 76
Pimmit Run.................................... 76
Theodore Roosevelt Memorial................ 61-71
Windy Run..................................... 76
Woodrow Wilson Memorial....................... 76
Upper Spout Run............................... 76
British Embassy, New Chancery Building......	24
Bronze eagle, sculptural feature for East Coast Memorial......................................... 26
Bronze Statue on Marble Pedestal: Gift from Germany................................ 38
Presentation of............................... 38
Location of................................... 40
Brucker, Hon. Wilber M., Secretary of Army...	34
Brundage, Hon. Percival F., Director, Bureau of the Budget....................................... 12,	18
Buckley, Hon. Charles A.,	Member	of Congress. 5, 9,
11, 15
Buildings for Department	of	Defense.......... 21
Bunker, Ellsworth, President of American Red Cross............................................ 37
Bureau of Public Roads........................... 6
Burket, Rhees, Architect........................ 51
C
Callaway, Paul, Organist and Choirmaster, Washington Cathedral............................ 4
Callmer, C. P., Architect......................... 84
Carillon Tower, gift from The Netherlands: Design of...................................... 38
Site for........................................ 38
page 97
Page
16
20
20
6
21
20
20
84
51
51, 84
52
4
19
18
Carmichael, Dr. Leonard, Secretary of Smithsonian Institution...........................
Carroll, Grisdale & Van Alen, Architects.....
Carroll, J. Roy Jr., Architect...............
Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, Fla...
Central Heating Plan.........................
Central Intelligence Agency, building:
Design for.................................
Site of....................................
Chamber of Commerce Building, addition to. . .
Chase, D. G., Architect......................
Chatelain, Gauger & Nolan, Architects........
Chatelain, Leon, Jr., Architect..............
Chavez, Hon. Dennis, United States Senatoi . . . Civil Service Commission, new building.......
Civil Service Commission Building (Old Patent
Office Building)...........................
Clark, Gen. Mark W., Chairman, National Memorial Committee of American National Red Cross....................................
Clark, Hervey Parke, Architect...............
Clark, Philip B., Line Materials Industry....
Clarke, Gilmore D., Landscape Architect......
Cleland, Thomas, Advisory Committee on Postage Stamps...................................
Coe, Merrill A., Supervising Architect, District of Columbia..................................
Columbia, sculptured figure of...............
Commission of Fine Arts......................
Act Establishing a........................
Duties under “Old Georgetown Act”.........
Duties under Shipstead-Luce Act...........
Expanding function of.....................
Increasing membership of..................
Commissioners of District of Columbia. . 79, 80, 85, 88
Committee of 100 on National Capital............. 5
Conrad, Charles, National Capital Planning
Commission................................. 69, 74
Constitution Avenue Bridge:
Authorized.................................... 62
Statement of Chairman	Finley on............... 62
Constitution Avenue site proposed for National
Cultural Center................................ 5
Constitution Avenue,	Widening................... 77
Cook, Lt. Col. James S., Jr., Heraldic Branch,
Department of the Army..................... 45, 47
Council of Fine Arts............................. 2
Council of Sponsors, Auditorium Commission. .	3
Court of Claims Building, location of........... 15
Cox, Allyn, Painter............................. 29
Cret, Paul, Architect.......................... 21
Cultural Aspects of the Federal Highway System............................................ 9
36
25
55
36
42
52, 53
25, 30
1
95
85 79
2 2
D
Decoration in Public Buildings...................... H
de Francisci, Anthony, Postage Stamp Committee ............................................ 42
Deigert & Yerkes, Architects....................... 52
de Marco, Jean, Sculptor........................... 25
Denton, William N., Architect................... 22,23
Page
Department of Buildings and Grounds........... 51
Department of Defense Medals, designs for:
Air Force Commendation Medal................ 50
Captain Robert Dexter Conrad Award........	50
Distinguished Civilian Service Award......	47
Distinguished Civilian Service Award (Navy).	47
Distinguished Civilian Service Medal (non-
Civil Service)............................ 60
Distinguished Public Service Award.......... 47
Meritorious Civilian Service Award.......... 47
Department of State Diplomatic Courier Service Medal......................................... 46
Department of State Extension of Existing Building.................................... I2
Decorations for...........................
Designs for...............................
Landscaping Plans.........................
Paintings for............................. 13,	14
Sculpture for............................. 13,	14
Department of the Treasury.................... 45
Derounian, Hon. Steven B., Member of Congress ........................................ 37
de Weldon, Felix W., Sculptor, Member of
Commission of Fine Arts....... 1, 32, 34, 36, 40, 46
Diplomatic Courier Service Medal, Department of State...................................... 46
Discus Thrower, gift from Italy: Description of................................ 40
Site of..................................... 40
District of Columbia General Hospital, Additions ........................................ 62
District of Columbia Schools (See Schools)
Dorman, Charles, Jr., Architect............... 32
Duane, Frank, Chairman, Advisory Committee
on Lighting Standards..................... 55,	56
DuBois, Arthur E., Technical Director, Heraldic
Branch, Department of the Army................ 47
Dunn, Charles, District of Columbia Electrical
Department.................................... 65
E
E Street Bridge, proposed.....................
East Coast Memorial:
Design for.................................
Sculptural feature for.....................
Site of....................................
Eggers and Higgins, Architects................
Eggers, Otto, Architect.......................
Eichenberg, Fritz, Postage Stamp Committee. .	42
Eisenhower, Dwight D., President of the United
States....................................... 38,	40
Elam, B. D., Architect............................ 84
Eliot Junior High School......................... 51
Engle, Claude R., Jr., General Engineering Associates...................................... 65
Estes, Thomas S., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State..................................... 14
Executive Orders.............................. 96,	96
Extension of area covered by SL to include
Lafayette Square.............................. 79
page 98
F
Page
Faulkner, Kingsbury & Stenhouse, Architects. .	19
Faulkner, Waldron, Architect................... 80
Federal Advisory Commission on the Arts......	5, 6
Federal Advisory Council on the Arts............ 6
Federal City Council............................ 5
Federal Highway Administrator, Bertram D.
Tallamey...................................... 6
Federal Highway System, Cultural Aspects	of. .	6
Federal Office	Buildings, designs for:
F.O.B. No.	6............................... 19
F.O.B. No.	8............................... 19
F.O.B. No.	9............................... 19
F.O.B. No.	10.............................. 19
Fellers, Robert E., Director, Division of Philately, Post Office Department.......................... 42
Fine Arts Commission of New York City........	26
Finley, David E., Chairman, Commission of
Fine Arts.................................. 1
Director, National Gallery of Art, former. ...	1, 41
Honorary membership AIA....................... 8
Statements on:
Auditorium Commission’s Report............. 3
National Air Museum....................... 17
New Hampshire Avenue Bridge............... 61
Tunnel Crossing........................... 68
Finucane, Hon. Charles C., Acting Secretary of the Army..................................... 32
Fire Department Buildings, designs for:
Engine Company No. 32 and Rescue Squad
No. 3..................................... 52
First Infantry Division Monument:
Design for addition.......................... 33
Fischelis, Dr. Robert P., Secretary of American
Institute of Pharmacy........................ 81
Five Freedoms, National Monument Symbolizing the......................................... 35
Floete, Franklin C., Administrator, General Services Administration......................... 13
Food and Drug Administration, Building for: F.O.B. No. 8.................................... 19
Fort Lesley J. McNair, designs for additional housing......................................... 21
Founding members of Commission of Fine Arts.	2
Franklin, Benjamin, Anniversary Medal........	45
Fraser, Laura Gardin, Sculptor................... 45
Fredericks, Marshall, Sculptor............... 13, 14
Freer Gallery of Art........................... 41
Freeway System, designs for:
Anacostia Freeway............................ 57
Southeast.................................... 57
Southwest.................................... 57
Freeway Threat to Lincoln Memorial............. 57
Freyssinet-Preload, Consulting	Engineers.....	67
Friede, Herbert A., Electrical Engineer, Depart-
ment of Highways and Traffic............... 53, 55
Friedlander, Leo, Sculptor..................... 29
Fulbright, Hon. J. William, United States
Senator....................................... 4
Future Growth of the Capital.................... 9
G
Page
Gallaudet College, designs for: Cafeteria and Service Building................... 22
Girls’ Dormitory.............................. 22
Hearing and Speech Clinic..................... 22
Library....................................... 22
Men’s Dormitory............................... 22
Physical Education Building................... 22
Science and Classroom Building................ 22
Garfield Elementary School (Turner Elementary School)..................................... 51
Garrett, Hon. George, Presidential adviser on redevelopment of Southwest....................... 58
Gauger, Earl V., Architect.................. 80,	84
Gehron, William, Architect...................... 26
General Services Administration........... 9,	18, 73
George Washington Memorial Parkway...........	75
Germany, Republic of, gift from................. 38
Gifts to United States from: Italy............................................ 40
Republic of Germany........................... 38
The Netherlands............................... 38
Venezuela..................................... 40
Gilbert, Cass, Jr., Architect................... 33
Graham, Anderson, Probst & White,	Architects.	13
Great Plaza, the: Resolution on.................................... 73
Restoration of................................ 73
Gronchi, Giovanni, President of Italy........... 40
Gugler, Eric, Architect..................... 35,	37
H
Hagedorn, Hermann, Director of Theodore Roosevelt Association............................ 37,	64
Hancock, Walker, Sculptor................... 14,	29
Harbeson, Hough, Livingston and Larson, Architects............................... 33,	57, 67
Harbeson, John, Architect.... 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 35, 56
Harley, Ellington & Day, Architects............. 13
Harley, Frederick M., Architect................. 13
Harrer, Anthony F., Architect................... 21
Harrington, A. D., General Electric Corporation. 55
Harrison & Abramovitz, Architects............... 20
Harrison, Wallace K., Architect, Member of
Commission of Fine Arts.................... 1,	13
Hartke, Rev. Gilbert, O.P., Catholic University.	4
Haussmann, William M., Architect, National Capital Parks.................................... 76
Hawaii, American Cemetery, Honolulu. ........... 30
Hayes Concert Bureau............................. 5
Hellmuth, Obata, Kassabauin, Architects......	19
Hendley Elementary School....................... 51
Heraldic Branch, Office of Quartermaster Gen-
eral, Department of the Army........... 45,	46, 47
Highways and Traffic, Department of............. 53
Hill, Hon. Lister, United States Senator.....	5, 6
Holabird, Root & Burgee, Architects............. 82
Holabird, William, Architect.................... 82
Holtzclaw, H. J., Associate Director, Bureau of
Engraving and Printing........................ 41
Horne, Robert C., National Capital Parks.....	37
Hough, William J. H., Architect............. 57,	71
page 99
Page
H.J. Res. 690—84th Congress.................. 9
H.R. 1980—83rd	Congress................... 62
H.R. 2968—84th	Congress.................... 9
H.R. 3110—84th	Congress.................... 9
H.R. 4307—84th	Congress................... 17
H.R. 4687—84th Congress (Old Patent Office
Building)................................. 18
H.R. 4841—84th Congress (Old Patent Office Building)................................. 18
H.R. 5040—84th Congress...................... 5
H.R. 5756—84th Congress (Federal Advisory
Committee on Fine Arts).................... 5
H.R. 6593—84th Congress..................... 77
H.R. 7472—84th Congress..................... 68
H.R. 9873—-84th Congress.................... 15
H.R. 12060—-84th Congress................... 11
H.R. 1894—-85th Congress.................... 18
H.R. 4366—-85th Congress.................... 68
H.R. 4367—85th Congress..................... 68
H.R. 13017—85th Congress (National Cultural
Center).................................... 5
Howard, Leland, Director	of the Mint........ 46
Howard University, designs for: Auditorium of Fine Arts................... 22
Men’s Dormitory............................ 23
Hudnut, Joseph, Architect, member of Commission of Fine Arts....................... 1,	80
Hunter, Col. Thomas B., Assistant Engineer Commissioner............................. z 5
Hunter, L. L., Supervising Architect, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration ................................. 16;
11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 74
Identification of Public Buildings............ 10
Immler, Charles W., Architect, Atomic Energy
Commission................................. 4/
Inadequate sites for buildings................. 7
Independence Avenue, Widening................. 77
Inner Loop Freeway:
Memorandum—Design of Inner Loop...........	58
Part of Southwest Freeway.................. 57
Railroad Bridge and Viaduct................ 56
Threat to Lincoln Memorial................. 57
Institute of Contemporary Arts................. 5
International Business Machines Corp., building for......................................... 84
International Cooperation Administration Service
Award Medals . . . ........................ 46
International Plaza......................... 74
Italy, gift from: The Discus Thrower........ 40
J
Jones, Thomas Hudson, Sculptor....... 32, 45, 46, 47
Justement, Elam and Darby, Architects......	84
K
Karns, E. B., Westinghouse Electric Co.....	55
Keally, Francis, Architect.................. 28,	29
Keddy, Dr. John L., Assistant Secretary, Smithsonian Institution................................
Page
Kent, Norman, Postage Stamp Committee.......	42
Kenworthy, Nelson A., Department of State. . .	13
Koning, Paul, Sculptor........................ 38
Korean Conflict (Memorials)............. 30,	32, 33
Krekeler, Heinz L., Ambassador of Federal
Republic of Germany......................... 38
L
“Laboring Youth,” bronze statue............... 38
Lafayette Square.............................. 79
Laird, Ed., Landscape Architect............... 14
Land Acquisitions: Approval of................................. 75,	96
Committee on................................ '5
Recommendations on.......................... 75
Lane, Gen. Thomas A., Engineer Commissioner,
District of Columbia........... 54, 55, 57, 58, 66
LaSalle Elementary School..................... 51
Laux, Col. Ray T., member of Advisory Committee on Tomb of Unknown Soldier.............. 32
Leache, Leonard, Potomac Electric Power Co. .	55
L’Enfant Plan............................... 18,	58
Lighting Standards............................ 53
Lincoln Memorial, Freeway threat to the.....	57
Living Veterans of the War Between the States
Medal:
Design for.................................. 46
Disapproval of.............................. 46
Location of Court of	Claims Building.......... 15
Loebel, Schlossman	&	Bennett, Architects...	19
Lorimer, A. Gordon, Architect, Bureau of Public Roads......................................... ”6
Lundgren, Ralph O., Chairman of the Memorial Committee..................................... 33
Luxembourg American Cemetery,	Hamm.......	28
Me
McCarthy, Shane, Executive Director of Council on Youth Fitness............................. 45
McConihe, F. Moran, General Services Administration ..................................
McClure, Thomas............................... 14
McKay, Hon. Douglas, Secretary of Interior...	62
McKim, Mead & White, Architects............. 15,	16
McLaughlin, Robert E., President of Board of
Commissioners.............................. 59
McLeod & Ferrara, Architects................ 22,	51
McLeod, John W., Architect.................... 22
McMillan, Hon. James,	United States Senator..	1
McMillan Plan................................. 58
McNair, Fort Lesley J., designs for additional housing...................................... 21
McQueen, William A.,	Worcester Corp........... 56
M
Mall, 10th Street............................. 58
Manca, Albino, Sculptor....................... 26
Manship, Paul, Sculptor................. 16,	37, 42
Mansure, Edmund F., General Services Administration.................................... 11,	73
Marine Corps Memorial, Dedication of.......... 34
page 100
Page
Page
Marker Commemorating First Airplane Flight
on Army Post, Fort Myer, Va................. 34
Masters, Frank S., Engineer................... 71
Mellon, Hon. Andrew W., special stamp com-morating...................................... 43
Members of Advisory Panel on Performing Arts.	4
Members, Board of Architectural Consultants, Old Georgetown................................ 87
Members of CFA—-former....................  92-95
Members of Shipstead-Luce panel............... 80
Membership, proposal to increase Commission of Fine Arts...................................... 2
Memorandum—Design of Inner Loop............... 58
Memorials, designs for: American National Red	Cross.............. 36
East Coast.................................. 26
Gen. John J. Pershing, proposed............. 33
Robert A. Taft.............................. 37
Theodore Roosevelt.......................... 37
West Coast.................................. 25
Meyer, Mrs. Eugene, Chairman of Auditorium Commission..................................... 3
Mills, Petticord & Mills, Architects..... 15, 53, 84
Mills, Robert, Architect of Old Patent Office Building...................................... 18
Mitchell, Dr. Howard, Conductor, National
Symphony Orchestra........................... 4
Modjeski & Masters, Consulting Engineers....	67
Monin, Abdula, Second Secretary, Embassy of Pakistan.....................................  23
Monuments: First Infantry Division....................... 33
Five Freedoms, proposed..................... 35
Second Infantry Division.................... 33
Moore & Hutchins, Architects.................. 67
Moore, Bruce, Sculptor........................ 30
Muir, Emily L., Painter, member of Commission of Fine Arts................................... 1
Muir, Sir Edward, Chief, Ministry of Works, London........................................ 24
Municipal Building Addition................... 52
Mural-Painting, recommendations of National Academy of Design............................. 41
Murphy & Locraft, Architects.................. 51
Murphy, Frederick V., Architect, former member of Commission of Fine Arts..................... 2
Museum of History and Technology: Designs for................................... 15
Program for................................. 16
Site for.................................... 15
N
Naramore, Bain, Brady & Johanson, Architects. 19
National Academy of Design, Recommendations
on:
Architecture................................ 11
Art Exhibits................................ 41
Mural-Painting.............................. 41
Postage Stamps.............................. 41,	42
Sculpture................................... 11
National Air Museum, selecting site for..... 16. 17
National Association of Life Underwriters, Plans for building............................ SO
National Capital Parks.................... 37,	63, 74
National Capital	Parks Information	Center. ...	23
National Capital Park and Planning Commission ......................................... 96
National Capital	Park Commission.............. 96
National Capital	Planning Commission........	1,
5, 9, 33, 59, 63, 73, 74, 77, 96
National Collection of Fine Arts Museum, Site of............................................ 16
National Cultural Center for the Performing Arts........................................ 4
Meeting to	select site........................ 5
Sites proposed	for............................ 5
National Gallery of Art........................ 16,	43
National Guard Association Building, design for........................................... 84
National Headquarters Building of the Associated General Contractors:
Plans for.................................... 84
Recommendations for.......................... 84
National Historic Park, Morristown, N.J......	6
National Monument Commission: Authorized.. .	_............................ 35
Function of.................................. 35
Plans of..................................... 36
National Monument Symbolizing Five Freedoms: Authorization	for........................... 35
Design for................................... 35
National Opera Guild of Washington, D.C......	5
National Park Service.......................... 37,	73
National Symphony Orchestra..................... 5
National Zoological Park....................... 53
Natural History Museum: Design of..................................... 17
Site for..................................... 17
Nebesky, Joseph, Graphic Branch, International Cooperation Administration.................... 46
Neild, Edward F., Sr., Architect, member of Commission of Fine Arts........................ 1
Netherlands, A gift from The................... 38
New Governmental Center, Pakistan.............. 23
New Hampshire Avenue Bridge, proposed........	61
Nolen, John, National Capital Planning Commission....................................... 73
Noonan, T. Clifford, Architect................. 13,	14
North Capitol Street project................... 56
Northwest Rectangle............................ 75
Northwest Redevelopment Area................... 59
O
Obata, Gyo, Architect.......................... 19
Old Georgetown Act:
Board of Architectural Consultants........... 86,	87
Procedure for processing submissions.......	87
Public Law 808—81st Congress................. 85
Old Patent Office Building, Plans for...... 16,	18
Old Pension Office Building:
Suggested site for National Cultural Center. .	5
page 101
Page
Olmsted, Frederick Law, Landscape Architect, original member of Commission of Fine Arts.	1
Opera Society of Washington...................... 5
Organizations meeting to select site for National
Cultural Center................................ 5
Orr, Douglas W., Architect, Vice-Chairman of
Commission of Fine Arts.................. 1,	7, 37
P
Pakistan, New Governmental Center............... 23
Panel on Performing Arts, Advisory............... 4
Patton, General, grave in Hamm, Luxembourg.	28
Peaslee, Horace, Architect....................... 80
Peets, Elbert, Landscape Architect, Member of
Commission of Fine Arts.................. 1,	38, 64
Peoples Life Insurance Company Building: Plans for.....................................
Site of....................................... 84
Pereira & Luckman, Architects................... 81
Performing Arts:
Advisory Panel on...........................
National Cultural Center for................... 4
Perry, William G., Architect, member of Commission of Fine Arts.........................
Pershing, Memorial to General John J., proposed.	33
Peters, Charles A., Director, Building Management............................................ io
Petticord, George W., Jr., Architect............ 84
Police Department Buildings:
Detention House (Women’s	Bureau)......... 52
Police Station Precinct No.	7............... 52
Poorman, Fred S., Public Buildings Service. . . 10, 11,
12, 22, 75
Pope, John Russell, Architect............... 33,	82
Porter, Irwin S. & Sons, Architects............ 22
Porter, James, Architect....................... 22
Postage Stamp Competition:
Advisory Committee on....................... 42
Plans for..........................'........ 42
Recommendations on.......................... 41
Results of.................................. 43
Postmaster General, Hon. A. J. Robertson, As-
. .	,	42
sistant...................................
Post Office, Department of.................. 42,	74
President’s Council on Youth Fitness, Seal for. 45
Probst, Marvin, Architect...................... L3
Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown. 87
Public Buildings Service. ... 5, 11-14, 16-18, 22, 75, 81
Public Law 181—61st Congress................... 95
Public Law 231—71st Congress................... 79
Public Law 248—76th Congress................. 79
Public Law 808—81st Congress................. 85
Public Law 628—83d Congress.................. 38
Public Law 742—83d Congress.................. 35
Public Law 45—84th Congress.................. 95
Public Law 109—84th Congress................. 40
Punchbowl Crater, Honolulu, Hawaii........... 30
Purves, Edmund, Executive Director, American Institute of Architects.................
R	Page
Railroad Bridge and Viaduct (Inner Loop Freeway) .......................................... 56
Rapuano, Michael, Landscape Architect, member of Commission of Fine Arts.................. 1
Redevelopment Land Agency..................... 51s
Removal of temporary buildings...............
Republic of Germany, Gift from................ 3i*
Resolution on death of Frederick Law Olmsted.	2
Resolution on Great Plaza...................... 7.
Rich, Lorimer, Architect....................... 3^
Roberts, Gilroy, Chief Sculptor and Engraver of the Mint....................................... 4i
Robinson, Hilyard R., Architect................ 22,	2,
Robertson, Hon. Albert J., Assistant Postmaster
General...................................... 41,	4.
Robertson, J. N., Director of Department of
Highways and Traffic.................... 53, 65, 67
Roosevelt Association, Theodore........ 37, 61, 64, 65
Roosevelt Island, Theodore............. 37,	61-69, 71
Roosevelt Memorial, Theodore:
Design for.................................... 37
Site for...................................... 37
Roosevelt Memorial Bridge, Theodore:
Design for.................................. 67,71
Secretary of Interior,	study of............... 70
Site for.................................... 64, 71
S
Salk, Dr. Jonas E., medal..................... 45
Sawyer, Gerard L, Office of Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia.................. 56,	57
Schlossman, Norman, Architect................. 19
School for Crippled Children (C. Melvin Sharpe Health School)................................ 51
Schools, District of Columbia, designs for: Anacostia Senior High......................... 51
Eliot Junior High............................ 51
Garfield Elementary (Turner Elementary) ...	51
Hendley Elementary........................... 51
LaSalle Elementary........................... 51
School for Crippled Children (C. Melvin
Sharpe Health School)..................... 51
Searles, John R., Jr., Executive Director, Redevelopment Land Agency....................... 58,	59
Seaton, Hon. Fred A., Secretary of the Interior, report to President on Bridge study...... 70,	71
Second Infantry Division Monument.......... 33
Selfridge, Lt. Thomas E., bronze plaque to.	34
Senate Bill 2255—84th Congress............. 77
Senate Bill 3054—84th Congress.............. 5
Senate Bill 3419—84th Congress.............. 5
Senate Bill 930—85th Congress............... 6
Senate Bill 1716—85th Congress.............. 6
Senate Bill 1894—85th Congress............. 18
Senate Bill 1985—85th Congress............. 17
Senate Bill 3335—85th Congress.............. 4
Senseman, Ronald, Architect................ 51
page 102
Page
Sharpe Health School, C. Melvin (School for Crippled Children)............................ 51
Shepherd, Col. William E., Society of First
Infantry Division........................... 33
Shipstead-Luce Act: Extension of Area covered by.................. 79
Function of CFA............................. 79,	80
Panel for review............................ 80
Public Law 231—71st	Congress........... 79
Submissions under........................ 80-84
Simon, Louis A., Architect..................... 2,	80
Singstad, Ole, Engineer,	Tunnel expert.......	63
Smithsonian Institution:
Museum of History and Technology............ 15
National Air Museum......................... 16
National Collection of Fine Arts Museum....	17
Natural History Museum...................... 17
Transfer of Old Patent Office Building to. . . .	18
Solon, Faustin J., Vice President of National
Shrine Foundation........................... 36
Southeast Freeway............................. 57
Southwest Freeway............................. 57
St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Maximum Security Building, designs for......................... 23
St. John’s Church, Lafayette Square: Plans for changes............................. 80
Recommendations of CFA...................... 80
St. John’s College High School................ 84
State Department Building (See Department of
State Extension to Existing Building).
Stenhouse, J. H., Architect................... 19
Straus Memorial Foundation.................... 73
Striton, Malcolm R., Architect................ 13
Strobel, Peter A., Public Buildings Service..	11
T
Taft, Robert A., Memorial: Design of..................................... 37
Site for.................................... 37
Tallamy, Bertram D., Bureau of Public Roads.	6
Temporary Buildings............................ 9
The Mall.................................. 5,	16, 57
Thompson, George R., Chief of the Signal Corps, Historical Division........................... 34
Thompson, Harry T., National Capital Parks. .	23,
35, 37, 63, 73
Thompson, Hon. Frank, Jr., Member of Congress ......................................... 4
Threats to the appearance of the City of Washington ........................................ 7
Tomb of The	Unknown Soldier................... 32
Treasury,	Department of....................... 45
Tunnel, proposed.................. 62,	63, 64, 68, 69
Turner Elementary School (Garfield Elementary School)....................................... 51
U	Page
Unknowns from World War II and Korean Conflict....................................... 32
U.S. Information Agency	Honor Award	Medals.	46
V
Vanguard Computing Center: Design of...................................... 34
Recommendations of CFA....................... 34
Venezuela, Gift from........................... 49
Veterans of Foreign	Wars—Headquarters
Building: Designs for.................................. 32
Site of...................................... 82
Voluntary Requests for Advice on Important Buildings...................................... 23
W
Waldon & Madden, Architects.................... 84
Wall, Col. Roy A., Advisory Committee on
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.................. 32
Walter Reed Medical Center..................... 21
Warren, Chief Justice Earl, Chancellor of
Regents, Smithsonian Institution............. 15
Washington Memorial Parkway, George........	75
Washington Metropolitan Problems................ 7
Washington Monument, Lighting for.............. 37
Webb & Knapp, Architects for Redevelopment
Land Agency.............................. 58,	59
Weihe, Frick & Krause, Architects.............. 30
Welling, Col. A. C., Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia................... 56,	57, 69
Wenley, A. G., Director, Freer Gallery of Art. .	41
West Coast Memorial: Design for..................................... 25
Site of...................................... 25
White, Lawrence G., President of National Academy of Design........................... 41-43
Wilgoos, R. A., Architect................,	. .	51
Wilson, A. Hamilton, Architect................. 52
Wilson & Denton, Architects................ 22,	52
Wilson, Edward A., Postage Stamp Competition Committee...................................... 42
Wilson, Hon. Charles E., Secretary of Defense..	32
Wilson, Linton R., Secretary of Commission of
Fine Arts........................... 1,10,75
Wilson, Phil, Architect.................... 13
Wirth, Conrad, Director, National Park	Service.	35
Woodbridge Branch Public Library........... 52
World War II..................... 25, 26, 30, 32, 33
Y
Youth Correction Center........................ 53
Z
Zoological Park, National...................... 53
o
page 103
FA 1:1:17 report