The Committee of 100 on the Federal City

Transcription

1 The Committee of 100 on the Federal City 11 ww.c o i tteeof'i oo.1wt Founded 1923 Chair Stephen A. Hansen Vice-Chair Meg Maguire Secretary Jim Nathanson Treasurer Carol F. Aten Trustees George Clark Judy Chesser Dorothy Douglas Monte Edwards Alma Gates Larry Hargrove Kathy Henderson George ldelson Nancy J. MacWood, ex officio Kate Montague Perry Elizabeth Purcell Laura M. Richards, Esq. Pat Tiller Kirby Vining Beverley Wheeler Evelyn Wrin May 9, 2017 Ms. Michelle Spofford Architect + Senior Planning Manager Smithsonian Institution 600 Maryland A venue, SW - Suite 5001 Washington, DC spoffordm@si.edu Subiect: Dear Ms. Spofford: Response to May 3, 2017, Section 106 Consultation Meeting on Proposed Smithsonian South Mall Campus Master Plan The Committee of 100 on the Federal City offers these comments on the new Alternative F unveiled at the May 3 pubic meeting as well as on continuing discussions and conceptual iterations ofthe proposed Smithsonian South Mall Campus Master Plan. While we find many aspects of the Plan laudable, we remain firmly opposed to demolition of the Haupt Garden and the Carlhian-designed pavilions in the Quadrangle Historic District, which was recently designated a DC landmark by unanimous vote of the Historic Preservation Review Board. The destruction of these contributing elements remains a prominent constant in many of the design alternatives currently under consideration and seemingly preferred by the Smithsonian Administration. We believe that a design challenge requiring a thoughtful and exemplary balance between old and new - to preserve the Quadrangle Historic District while meeting your desired new program - is not only possible but desirable. In this matter, you have an exciting design opportunity - a new phase ofsmithsonian development on the National Mall all the while respecting and acknowledging your venerable past. 945 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C info@committeeofloo.net The principal drivers of the South Mall project are generally laudable: restoration and upgrading the universally-loved Castle - returning it to its historic role as locus of the Institution, providing increased and updated visitor amenities and access, upgrading facilities, better administrative space, restoration/ expansion of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, etc. But none should be achieved at the cost of destroying a significant historic development chapter in the Smithsonian' s past and replacing it with what is at best an embarrassingly

2 Ms. Michelle Spofford May 9, 2017 Page Two incompatible landscape design concept. The entire Quadrangle Historic District is a historicallyimportant chapter in the Smithsonian's history. It is a nuanced and sophisticated historic design and physical manifestation ofthe ongoing growth ofthe Smithsonian presence on the National Mall, the legacy of and a promise made to benefactor Enid A. Haupt and the final legacy of the Institution's most influential Secretary, Dillon Ripley. As regards other issues now in play (including Alternative F), we do have numerous concerns and questions. None, however, rises to the importance ofpreserving the Quadrangle Historic District. Those additional matters to which we look for further discussion and clarification are: 1) preservation of the Hirshhorn Museum plaza walls; 2) proposed destruction of the Lester Collinsdesigned Hirshhorn Sculpture Garden; 3) inexplicable and continued ignoring ofthe Arts and Industries Building as viable space for meeting South Mall Master Plan program needs; 4) fuller understanding of requirements and design for the proposed new loading dock system; and, 5) status and proposed design for new "doorway" on the east exterior elevation ofthe Freer Gallery ofart. The Committee of 100 appreciates your consideration ofthe points in this letter and looks forward to further discussions. Founded in 1923, the Committee of 100 is an independent, not-for-profit, citizen organization dedicated to safeguarding the fundamental values that give our nation's capital its distinction, beauty, and community character. Ifwe may be of further assistance to you in this matter, answer questions, or provide additional information or clarification, please contact me at the above address. Sincerely yours, Stephen A. Hansen, Chairman cc: David Maloney, DC SHPO, OP david.maloney@dc.gov Thomas Leubke, Secretary, CF A tluebke@cfa.gov Matthew Flis, Lee Webb, NCPC matthew.flis@ncpc.gov, lee.webb@ncpc.gov Rob Nieweg, Betsy Merritt, Will Cook, NTHP rnieweg@savingplaces.org emerritt@savingplaces.org wcook@savingplaces.org Rebecca Miller, Peter Sefton, DCPL Rebecca@dcpresevation.org psefton@comcast.net Charlene Dwin-Vaughn, ACHP cvaughn@achp.gov Peggy McGlone, Washington Post peggy.mcglone@washpost.com David Maxfield dmaxfield 1 O@gmail.com Richard Longstreth, George Washington University rwl@gwu.edu Alexandra Graubert/ Dede Petri petridede@gmail.com Donna Ari dbari@me.com Barbara Freeman bfreemanwdc@gmail.com William Brown, AOI aoiofdc@gmail.com

3 O Smithsonian Institution Office of Planning, Design and Constr uction Architectural History and Historic Preservation May 16, 2017 Stephen A. Hansen, Chair Committee of 100 on the Federal City Dear M r. Hansen: Thank you for your letter of May 9, 2017, addressed to Michelle Spofford, Architect and Senior Planning Manager at the Smithsonian, with comments based on the South Mall Campus Master Plan Consulting Parties meeting held on May 3, We appreciate the support regarding the new Alternative F which was presented at the meeting. At the request of the Consulting Parties and the reviewing agencies, the Smithsonian is evaluating the effectiveness of incorporating underground elements of Alternative Finto a modified Alternative B, which keeps the pavilions and gardens. Alternative F will still be retained as an option of the Master Plan. In addition, the Assessment of Effects on Historic Resources is underway to review several of the alternatives, including Band F, as part of the ongoing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 assessments. The Smithsonian will consider the adverse effects of the alternatives on the Smithsonian Quadrangle Historic District recently listed on the DC Inventory of Historic Sites, as well as effects on the National Mall Historic District and other resources within the Area of Potential Effects. As to your comments regarding the design of the gardens and other elements within the Master Plan, the Smithsonian and the NEPA lead agency, the National Capital Planning Commission, have consistently maintained that the Master Plan is not a fully developed design. The Master Plan must illustrate the character of elements within the plan; the final design of each component will be undertaken incrementally with each project in the future. At the time the gardens are reinstalled after the replacement of the Quadrangle roof, there will be an additional Section 106 review. Thank you for your continued attention during the consultation process. Sincerely, Sharon C. Park Associate Director, Architectural History and Hist oric Preservation Office of Planning, Design and Construction 600 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 5001, MRC SI I P.O Box Washington, DC Telephone Fax

4 Response to Committee of 100 letter dated May 9, 2017 Cc: Smithsonian: Al Horvath, John Lapiana, Nancy Bechtol, Walter Ennaco, Ann Trowbridge, Michelle Spofford, Christopher Lethbridge, Carly Bond, Barbara Faust DC Office of Planning: David Maloney, Andrew Lewis; Commission of Fine Arts: Thomas Luebke; NCPC: Matthew Flis, Lee Webb; Lee.w Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; Charlene Dwin-Vaugh, 600 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 5001, MRC 511 P.O Box Washington, DC Telephone Fax

5 May 14, 2017 To: Michelle Spofford: From: David M. Maxfield Subject: Comments related to May 3, 2017 section 106 consultants meeting on the South Mall Campus Masterplan A. Committee of 100 I fully support the May 9, 2017, letter to you from The Committee of 100 on the Federal City. Among other issues highlighted in the letter, I endorse the need to respect "the legacy of and promise made to benefactor Enid A. Haupt and the final legacy of the Institution's most influential secretary, Dillon Ripley." (emphasis added) Further, the Committee, referring to Alternative F and its antecedents, states:... we do have numerous concerns and questions. None, however, rises to the importance or preserving the Quadrangle Historic District." B. Alterative B: Loading Ramp Issues At the May 3 Consultants' meeting, several participants suggested re-considering Alternative B. In general, I support this idea, but with the caveat that the Loading Facility remain at its present location. 1) Even casual observers note that space for truck turnabouts is compromised by parked service vehicles that could be relocated, saving expensive building costs. 2) As important, Thomas Luebke mentioned the unknown risk of excavating under the Castle's original West Wing and Range for new loading facilities. 3) DDOT among others seems concerned about relocating the entry ramp to the west of the Freer Gallery where space is limited due to the vehicular ramp leading into the 12th St. tunnel and related issues for traffic turning onto 12th from Independence Ave. east and west-bound lanes. 4) The existing ramp was ingeniously designed, occupying a relatively small footprint in the Quad and being nearly invisible to garden visitors. 5) It is troubling to me that Planning staff to date will not acknowledge the status of space utilization mentioned in Point 1 above. B. "Original Sin" As the May 3 meeting demonstrated to observers, the Institution has been locked for months in the ever-changing renderings by the contemporary architectural firm, Bjarke Ingels. The selection process seems to have been guided more by whim than serious evaluation. Rather than first presenting actual "concepts" that address the needs of the South Campus, the SI Planning office continues to reshuffle BIG's "designs" that are

6 incompatible with today's South Campus fabric. Plan F is yet the latest evolution though yet again the pavilions are "on the move," the Haupt Garden barely recognizable. A competent architectural design concept, one developed by a firm with deep experience in innovative yet compatible planning within a historic context, could have derived the desired improvements, all the while preserving the historic Quad components. C. For What Purpose? (A Reality Check) It should be time to back up and ask WHY the Institution is determined to deconstruct the Quadrangle. An often heard reason is that the two museums with entries on the Quad are unable to increase their visitation for lack of visibility from the Mall. This reasoning is far-fetched: The "Math Alive" exhibit was up for less than three months and attracted thousands of visitors. No one had trouble "finding" the entrances to the exhibit in the below-grade Ripley Center. The record-breaking attendance at the Hirshhorn Museum is another example of a "niche" museum-its entrance is on Independence Ave. - finding new audiences without resorting to costly entryway alterations. (As a former staff member at the American Art Museum, I have written about visitation statistics in relation to the popularity-even the controversy of a variety of exhibitions. ) The Freer Gallery of course directly fronts the Mall, so by logic, its visitation should be very encouraging for a "niche" museum which the Sackler-Freer and African Art can be described. The Asian Society located prominently on audience-rich Park Avenue in New York City has a fraction of the visitation of the Natural History Museum across town on Central Park West. D. Cost (Skorton communications) In several communications with Secretary Shorten in mid-may related to the Quadrangle and specifically his recent article entitled: "Public Gardens Foster the Public Good," I wrote: "The cost for the South Campus program is now projected at$ 2-3 Billion by the Smithsonian's planning staff. I want you to know that the public-that is, everyone to whom I mention Si's plans-are aghast. The question to me is always: 'Who's paying for all this?"' (To date, I understand, no funds have been requested or appropriated by Congress although an estimated $5-million has been spent to date from SI funds for Master Plan expenses and architectural fees, not including SI salaries and other overhead.) E. The Haupt Garden In her Guide to Smithsonian Gardens, Carole Ottesen states: The Haupt Garden has served "beautifully and and brilliantly... Resplendent and welcoming, it is the outwardfacing countenance of the museums around and below it." Sadly, though, Plan F presented May 3 is a mishmash of trees and shrubs and masonry barriers, layer upon layer, that seem purposed to disguise the relocation of the museum pavilions and to appease those opposed to destroying the garden's present-day footprint.

7 Although the Renwick Gates seem (for now) are saved from BIG 's designs, what has happened to the the Moon Gate-an occasional joyous site for weddings-the Chadar and other features in a reconstructed garden? As for adding an educational space, such as a demi-round, raked seating area, at present there is plenty of space along the pathways for cafe-style chairs and tables (see Bryant Park and Luxembourg Gardens) for instruction or social gatherings. According to former Smithsonian development staff as well as a Haupt family member, the Smithsonian entered into a contractual agreement with Enid Haupt to maintain the eponymous garden in perpetuity. To break that trust would seem an ethical breach of the Smithsonian's commitment. As Mrs. Haupt's grand-niece, Alexandra Graubert, recently testified: ''The garden is the most photographed garden in the Smithsonian complex. Please preserve the historic style of the garden for future generations to enjoy as she envisioned when she gave the funds to Secretary Ripley for the construction and an endowment for its upkeep. (emphasis added) G. Petition Letters Following below are are a selection of comments by more than 2500 signers of the Save the Haupt Garden Petition that express dismay of the Smithsonian's plans to destroy the Garden with little commitment its eventual replacement as envisioned by Mrs. Haupt and Secretary Ripley. (emphasis added) H. The Castle: Uses and Abuses. Those of us at the Smithsonian in the 1980s recall the emergency measures that had to be taken during construction of the Quad, when, after all the engineering precautions, the South Tower started to pull away from the building and started to sink into the construction pit. Massive underpinning resulted to remedy the near disaster. Consequently, no more than minor excavation should be allowed beneath the Castle! Several studies commissioned when I was at SI addressed the limitation of excavation work. Apparently, BIG and SI now have simply dismissed the recommendations risking the stability of the Castle. I. Visitor Services Just 17% of all visitors to the Smithsonian head first to the Castle. The remainder head directly to their "constituent" museums, chiefly Air and Space, Natural History, American History and now the African-American Museum. Of course, the Arts and Industries Building sits idle, which could serve well for the needs of those visitors, the 17 %, desiring orientation, food services and convenience facilities. Alternatively, if the Great Hall were restored to its former dimension-a fine idea-most of these functions could be relocated to the Castle basement thus clearing out the "eye-sores"-the shabby furnishings, expensive cafe and 2nd-rate shops-now present in the Great Hall. Thank You

8 David M. Maxfield Save the Smithsonian QUADRANGLE'S Enid Haupt Garden, Renwick Gates and Museum Pavilions Petition Initiated: April 6, 2016: 2450 Signatures A Selection of 1195 Comments Sara Baskett, Washington State: Who thought installing a grassy space across the street from the huge grassy space of the mall was a good idea? Barbara Freeman, Washington, DC: I worked directly with Mrs. Enid Haupt on the endowment ($3M) for this splendid garden. She would be enraged to think that the SI would betray its promise/contract with her! Joan Novell, Silver Spring: Save the peaceful and perfect Enid Haupt garden, who's design compli ments the Castle building, and adds character to a place many use to rest and relax and reflect on the beauty of the city. PLEASE FIND A WAY! Linda Gorsuch, Alexandria: This garden is a beautiful oasis, a place of respite and contemplation for many in a hectic world. We have too few gardens in urban settings. They are important - for us humans, and for the various birds, insects, and other animals with whom we share our space. Carol Maxwell, Alexandria: Unbelievable the plan for getting rid of the beautiful Haupt Garden has not been scrapped by now.... The replacement plan is very nice--for someplace else. We have enough grassy mall areas. Haupt Garden is a jewel we must save. Michael Herman, Washington: Washington may be a city of parks but not necessarily a city of gardens. We need this garden to remain as a peaceful refuge from the often crowded and boisterous National Mall. Marcy Hoelting, Washington: This beautiful garden is a much needed respite in DC. Please do not go with another boring minimalist design that are already all over urban areas. The current style fits the castle architecture, and I learn so much from the variety of vegetation in the current Haupt Garden. Louise Crissman, Bethesda: It's such a beautiful and restful place with lovely flowers, and a nice escape from the Mall. I enjoy it often, especially when visiting the Sackler. Dorothy Joslin, Fairfax: The proposed master plan will be an expensive disaster... We like the entrances to the museums as they are. Farley Peters, Washington: [The garden]... complements the Castle and offers a welcoming contrast to the street and stark office buildings that face it. Its a joyful respite of beauty where you might least expect it. Joan McQueeney, Silver Spring: I am outraged at the stupidity of the unnecessary, and overpriced architectural plans to redo this area of the Smithsonian's treasure on the Mall. Come to your senses and spend the money more wisely. Leslie Limmer, Washington: I LOVE the Enid Haupt Garden, and enjoy whenever I visit the Smithsonian. And it's never empty, even in cold weather. The plans to replace it with an expanse of grass is just chilling. Kathleen Donohue, Torrington: Grass is not the answer. Fix the roof and put the garden back. In this day and age, any space for respite needs to be cherished. Ty Doughty, Hyattsville: The new design is totally boring and depressing and clashes with the castle. Richard Schultz, Hagerstown: It is time to leave things on the mall as they are. Do the "upkeep", but STOP all the damn other crap. Jennifer Urquhart: It's crazy and also costly to dig up a stunning garden designed by Enid Haupt. Fix the drainage without damaging the garden, please. Maisie Hughes, Statesville: Please invest the funds for this project into something that needs renovating. This garden is amazing the way it is.

9 Anonymous: As a member of the Smithsonian Legacy society, changes to the Haupt garden is neither an aesthetic change nor an expense I can support. Anonymous: Please save the Haupt Garden! The Smithsonian isn't just about the buildings and their contents : the gardens, green space around the buildings.... Katherine H Kerin, Millbrook: I am the landscape curator at lnnisfree Garden, a now public landscape designed by Lester Collins and named by author and historian Rory Stuart as one of the world's ten best gardens. The Haupt Garden is fully consistent with Col lins' overall body of work, it is of national significance, and it must be preserved. Carolyn Rapp, Falls Church: As a volunteer in the garden for two years, I heard so many people say what a beautifu l, peacefu l place it is. The public appreciates the Garden. Gina Brandt, Los Angeles: Why on earth is a Danish firm being used for the redesign of our nation's capitol. It's shameful. Yvonne Yoerger, Arlington: There are fewer and fewer healthy green spaces in DC.... And that's not even addressing the historical significance of this garden. Sylvia Robinson, Australia: In cities, any garden should be retained. Gay Tice, Fairfield: As a supporter of the Smithsonian Institution, I urge the Institution's Secretary to re-consider the South Campus Plan.... Susan Proulx, Reston: Got married in the moon garden thi nking it would be always there for us to visit as we do often. Would be so sad to see it demolished. What is the reason? Anonymous: Please, PLEASE do not destroy this magical garden. It is my beloved sanctuary. A jewel I show off to countless visitors. Karen Burditt, Washington: The Enid Haupt Garden was a delight when it opened in 1987 and has remained so for 29 years. Martha Ryan, Cadiz: Why would you even consider this? Who thought of such a ridiculous idea? Myla Williams, Bethesda: Implementing the Smithsonian 's proposal would not only destroy this place of beauty, it would deter potential future benefactors... Hays Browning, Washington: The beautiful Haupt Garden was a gift that was certainly intended to be in perpetuity. The idea of destroying is shocking ingratitude and should certainly make potential donors hesitant if they think their gift might be destroyed... George O Siekkinen Jr., Lynchburg:... the existing design ensemble is a perfect counterpoint to The Castle. Above all, the past generosity and vision of Enid Haupt deserves better respect. Philip C Brooks, Williamsburg: I used to be as Smithsonian staff member, and these treasures were part of my friend Dr. Ripley's dream. Sheila Brennan, Palmayra: The causes visitors to stop and take in the architecture of the Castle and to see the African Art and Asian Art museums to their left and right. Please do not take this beautiful garden away. Larry Slagle, Washington: This travesty in the making is the product of donor ego, unqualified and short-sided staff who risk adding to the tragic list of Capitol Losses... Elaine Sarao, Washington: The $2 Billion would be better spent on the existing Smithsonian bui ldings and programs the Smithsonian delivers to the public and taxpayers. Susan Fischer.Washington: Tax payers money should be wisely spent to enhance and improve the quality of the smithsonian museums and grounds not destroy what we already use. Helena Wright, Washington: The Castle needs a careful restoration, not a project that would undermine its foundation. Thea McGinnis, Arlington: Enid Haupt was a great patron to American Horticulture and she donated the funds for this garden. She was incredibly generous... I believe there is something rather unethical about destroying a garden paid for... by recent past benefactors... Sam Bahr, Greenbelt: Whoever made the choice to hire that the firm that made the horrendously ugly and inappropriate proposal should be fired! Lynda Couvillion, Washington: The overall project sounds like a vanity project for someone. Use money wisely to upkeep and upgrade museums/gardens as necessary. Cherif W Oubouzar, Charles Town: The Enid Haupt Garden has become so Identifiable with the Smithsonian that destroying it to build some ultra mordern abomination would be more detrimental to the Smithsonian's image.

10 PT Anikeeff, Baltimore: Bad PR Smithsonian! This is what you do to Donors who answered your call to fund the G arden decades ago why would anyone give money to an organization which has no respect for people or Donors. Ann English, Washington: The Enid Haupt garden honors an important 20th c. Philanthropist who focused efforts on Gardens and their benefits.... Nancy Slade: This garden was designed by Lester Collins and others deserves to be preserved. It provides context for the buildings it surrounds and is unique in its type in Washington DC Heide Wessels, Washington: To spend $2 billion, on this destruction and to hire an architect that is not even living in the US is outrageous. we have plenty of good architects right here in the Nations Capital. Samuel G White, New York: This human-scaled garden needs to be better known, not destroyed. Carolyn Crouch, Washington: National Cathedral stone carver Constantine Seferlis created the beautiful columns supporting the garden's wrought iron entry gate. The artistry in the Enid Haupt Garden goes beyond the plantings! Robin Rentsch, Sterling: The Enid Haupt and the Mary Ripley gardens are historic and should be retained. They soften the bricks and mortar of the Institute Carl Smith, Washington: I think they should use the Arts and Industry building for whatever above ground pavilion they are planning. Kathleen Lyman, Springfield: I'm a James Smithson Society member and I don't want you to spend any money el iminating the most beautiful part of the smithsonian. Martha Sewell, Alexandria: Why the Smithsonian would contemplate destroying the beauty of this garden oasis for an unnecessary revision when the Smithsonian has so many other financial needs, is beyond me. Christopher Couture, Arlington: I'm really shocked at the audacity of SI officials who bel ieve they could execute such a betrayal. We demand accountability: Who approved this project? Let's look to see who benefits from this shady deal. Kay Compton, Meriden: How cou ld anyone consider destroying such beauty? Especially those entrusted with its care. that the process is fully investigated. Karen Zens, Washington: The Haupt Garden (and the adjacent entrances to the Sackler and African Art Museums) are magical places on a human scale in a city with too many arid, monumental spaces. Bridget Gonzales, Washington: Plans to connect the Mall to SW do not require demolition of the gardens. In fact, they should expand the gardens to Banneker Park. Myra Banks-Scott, Clinton: I cannot see how a company from another country can come here and create shopping malls and destroy historic places that they would not do in their homeland. Cynthia Field, Washington: This garden, so well designed in harmony with the period of the Castle, should not be destroyed from the point of view of the damage you will do to donor relationships. William Seale: What poor judgment, to destroy one of Washington's great surprises. moreover these gardens provide a setting for the architecture of the castle. Who would even consider this? Garrett Peck, New Mexico: The garden is a beautiful, restful oasis on the National Mall - and the Renwick Gates were part of Renwick's vision for the Castle. They should be preserved, as is. Invest the money in renovating the Castle instead. Bridget Gonzales, Washington State: Plans to connect the Mall to SW do not require demolition of the gardens. In fact, they should expand the gardens to Banneker Park. William Allen, Bethesda: The Smithsonian is supposed to be preserving the nation's heritage not destroying it. Destroying this elegant garden is reckless vandalism ####

11 o Smithsonian Institution June 7, 2017 David M. Maxfield Dear Mr. Maxfield: Thank you for your comments dated May 14, 2017, addressed to Michelle Spofford, Architect and Senior Planning Manager at the Smithsonian, in response to the South Mall Campus Master Plan Consulting Parties meeting held on May 3, The Smithsonian is preparing for our next Consulting Parties meeting, which will include a detailed discussion of the Master Plan's purpose and need, which extend beyond only increased visibility of the Quadrangle pavilions, and how the proposed alternatives address these needs. Thank you for your comment in support of Alternative B, which will be assessed further at our next meeting, as well as an evaluation of a modified Alternative B based on comments from the May 3rd Consulting Parties meeting. As to your comment regarding the projected cost of the Master Plan, please note that the plan addresses the needs of five buildings, and all aspects of proper systems functioning. We hope that you can attend the next meeting with your comments regarding the effectiveness of the existing Quadrangle loading dock, so that we can discuss the efficiency of consolidated loading. As to your comments regarding the Haupt Garden, the renderings shown at the May 3rd meeting are required by the National Capital Planning Commission in their review of Master Plans, where the character of the elements within the Master Plan must be depicted. The layered approach in illustrating Alternative F was intended to show how the Haupt Garden will retain the character of the existing garden, specifically through formal/informal plantings, brick paths, and areas for teaching and informal gathering. Regarding your comments on excavation, minimizing risk to the Castle through minor excavation and seismic retrofitting is of the utmost important to protect this historic resource. The Assessment of Effects on Historic Resources is underway on the Master Plan Alternatives, as part of the ongoing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Section 106 process. The Smithsonian will consider any adverse effects of the Alternatives on the Smithsonian Quadrangle Historic District, recently listed on the DC Inventory of Historic Sites, as well as effects on the National Mall Historic District and other resources within the Area of Potential Effects. We expect to hold our next Consulting Parties meeting in mid-to-late summer. Thank you for your continued attention during the consultation process. Sincerely, Sharon C. Park Associate Director, Architectural History and Historic Preservation Office of Planning, Design and Construction 600 Maryland Avenue SW Suite 5001 PO BOX MRC 511 Washington, DC ParkS@si.edu

12 National Trustfor Historic Preservation Saue the past. Enrich the future. May 17, 2017 VIA Michelle Spofford, Architect & Senior Planning Manager Smithsonian Institution 600 Maryland Ave.; Ste Washington, DC Re: Smithsonian Institution South Mall Campus Master Plan I Comments in Response to Alternative F Dear Ms. Spofford: We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional comments in regards to the Smithsonian Institution's ongoing review of its South Mall Campus Master Plan and newly released Alternative F. Certain aspects of Alternative Fare preferable to the earlier alternatives, for the reasons discussed at the May 3 public hearing and as outlined in the letter of May 9, 2017, to you from Stephen A. Hansen of The Committee of 100 on the Federal City. However, we reiterate our opposition to the proposed demolition of the Haupt Garden and the Quadrangle Historic District's Carlhian-designed pavilions. As you know, the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board has added the Quadrangle Historic District to the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites. We applaud the Smithsonian's desire to return the Castle as the Smithsonian's locus point, with an improved historic rehabilitation plan, visitor amenities, and administrative space. However, we also reiterate our opposition to the proffered "purpose and need" of enhancing "connectivity" as the Smithsonian's justification for eliminating the existing gardens and pavilions, which contribute to the Quadrangle's exceptional importance. Based on our own experience visiting the site on numerous occasions, we do not perceive that visitors to the Smithsonian are confused about how to navigate between the Smithsonian's museum buildings, connections to which are readily apparent to those using existing sidewalks, paths, and signage. Going forward, we look forward to further discussion at future consulting party meetings in regards to the preservation of the Hirsh horn Museum plaza walls, potential destruction of portions of Lester Collins-designed Hirsh horn Sculpture Garden, a revised vision for the still-vacant Arts & Industries Building to accommodate the Smithsonian's program needs, and the proposed new doorway on the east side of the Freer Gallery of Art, among other The Watergate Office Building 2600 Virginia Avenue NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC E law@savingplaces.org P F

13 issues. We will reserve our comments for those aspects of the project as we reach them during the Smithsonian' s ongoing con sultation process. Finally, Sharon Park's letter of May 16, 2017, to the Committee of 100 on the Federal City stated that the proposed Master Plan and its rendering of the garden plans is "not a fully developed design." We believe that the Smithsonian could make future consultations more productive if alternatives under consideration avoided the unnecessary confusion of preparing and providing highly detailed plans for discussion that actually resemble predetermined final plans-as opposed to more conceptual master plans left open for discussion. Thank you for con sidering our comments. Sincerely, William J. Cook Associate General Counsel cc: John M. Fowler, Reid Nelson, Charlene Vaughn & Tom McCulloch, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Stephanie Toothman, National Park Service Historic Preservation Program Tom Luebke, U.S. Commission on Fine Arts Lee Webb, National Capital Planning Commission David Maloney & Andrew Lewis, D.C. Historic Preservation Office Rebecca Miller, D.C. Preservation League Stephen A. Hansen, Committee of 100 on the Federal City Judy Feldman, National Coalition to Save Our Mall Sharon C. Park, FAIA, Chief, Architectural History & Historic Preservation Division, Smithsonian Institution 2

14 o Smithsonian Institution June 13, 2017 William J. Cook General Council, National Trust for Historic Preservation Dear Mr. Cook: Thank you for your comments dated May 17, 2017, addressed to Michelle Spofford, Architect and Senior Planning Manager at the Smithsonian, in response to the South Mall Campus Master Plan Consulting Parties meeting held on May 3, We appreciated the supportive comments regarding the modifications to the South Mall Campus Master Plan alternatives, specifically Alternative F, the proposed restoration of the Smithsonian Institution Building, the "Castle" and the improvement to visitor services. We also acknowledge your continued concerns with other aspects of Alternative F, particularly the proposed demolition of the pavilions in the Haupt Garden and the potential modifications to the Hirshhorn Museum's Sculpture Garden, among others. Regarding the presentation materials, we will continue to work with the staff of the National Capital Planning Commission regarding the level of detail necessary to illustrate the proposed Master Plan and facilitate feedback from the consulting parties. The intention of the drawings is to provide a sense of the proposed alternatives to allow for informed discussions without predetermining final designs. We agree it is necessary to avoid confusion where possible. We will continue to take your concerns under advisement as we proceed with the Assessment of Effects on Historic Resources which will be presented at the next Consulting Parties meeting. While the date has not yet been set, we believe it will be in the latter part of July. Thank you for your continued attention during the consultation process. Sincerely, Sharon C. Park Associate Director, Architectural History and Historic Preservation Office of Planning, Design and Construction Cc; Matt Flis, Lee Webb, NCPC Reid Nelson, Charlene Vaughn ACHP Andrew Lewis, David Maloney, DC HPO SI: Nauta-Rodriguez, Spofford, Trowbridge, Bond, Lethbridge 600 Maryland Avenue SW Suite 5001 PO BOX MRC 511 Washington, DC ParkS@si.edu

15 Comments on the Smithsonian South Mall Campus Plan, May Following Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting #8, Neil Fla nagan I want to applaud the design team for remaining flexible and presenting this new alternative. I remain in support ofalternative D and but accept alternative F as an equally appropriate option from the perspective of NHPA compliance. My comments are only related to the Quadrangle and Castle resources. I practically grew up in the Haupt Garden, playing in the moon gates on trips to the mall, and when my mother had to take me to work at USDA. I have many fond memories. The memories are enough for me; I know we can do better. The fundamentals of Alternatives D and F, as patiently refined by the architect with HPO, NCPC, and CFA are good and ready for selection as preferred alternative. The Haupt Garden is a nice garden. It's often busy. But that's not praise, that's sign of how bad our public realm is. When left DC for college, I had to confront that the fact that our park system could be a lot livelier. The fact that spaces like the Ripley Garden or the NGA and Hirshhorn sculpture garden are so rare in in the Monumental Core is a sign activists are wasting their energy stopping good design instead of encouraging more. We can do better. There is a new generation ready to bring life back to Southwest, starting with lqth street. The Quadrangle Bu ildings and Haupt Garden are not significant. Personally, I am an architect who welcomes the reassessment of Postmodernism. Washington doesn't have projects by Charles Moore, James Sterling, or Ricardo Legorreta. But it has for example, Amy Weinstein, a designer I think DC should be more proud of. Yet, I cannot find anything outstanding in this design. The Shepley Bulfinch buildings are the sort of retrograde work that has not been critically reaffirmed. The motifs of either building, with superficial nods to the non-western content of the collections, do not offer any special example of Postmodernism's use of geometry or typology, let alone engagement with motifs of African and Middle Eastern art. The detailing is not remarkable, especially for examples of granite cladding at the time when that was in frequent use. Worse, the presentations suggest that any preservation and adaptive reuse of these dysfunctional buildings would require a level ofreconstruction that not ideal for a preservation of fabric standpoint. Just as this is not an exceptional work, it is also not a representative one. It is not a humble main street that captures the aesthetic of a moment. It's a latecomer, try-hard project out of step with national trends in architecture.

16 These comments put aside that the building is younger than me, and could be the child of some of the consulting parties' representatives. A building found to be so inadequate so early should require higher scrutiny for its significance than the 106 process has given it. Alternatives C, D, and F have superior function that Justifies replacement. From a functional standpoint, Alternatives C, D, and F would be big improvements over the current Ripley Center. While I have fond memories of the Haupt Garden, I remember and know the Ripley Center as a dysfunctional space, primarily memorable for its gloom. The direct connection between the castle and orientation spaces would be a dramatic improvement. Simpler, brighter circulation in the Quad museums would be a similar improvement. The relocated and expanded loading facilities look extremely promising. I believe that the new, more welcoming entrances will place the quadrangle at the center of a revitalized connection to the city's waterfront. Remaking the quadrangle into a distinctive, functional facility is more consistent with NHPA goals. The alternatives consistent with the design team's vision should be advanced, because they will improve the visitor experience, to the Mall and to the two collections housed at the site. The Section 106 Process has improved what it can and should end. I am troubled to see the consulting parties question the safety of the underpinning of the Castle. I am not structural engineers, but I have spoken to some, and they all describe an underpinning and base isolation project on a sensitive project like this as rar e, but welldemonstrated and exciting. Additionally, I am concerned about the ACHP's suggestion at the meeting to create a "mix and match" parti. The clarity of the design team's work is commendable, and should be preserved as much as possible. Too often a lack of restraint by stakeholders in Washington leads to muddled designs that don't achieve any goals well. For example: the current Quadrangle buildings. This is not to say that alternatives D and Fare perfect. But those are not historic preservation issues. Resolving their issues coherently is the job of the Commission of Fine Arts and the design team, and I believe, based on alternative F, they can do this. From a historic preservation standpoint, I feel only alternatives A, C, and F alone should go forward. I would like to see the Section 106 process come to an end, so this project can go and become a landmark in its own right. Neil Flanagan Washington, D.C.