by the necessity of having to get two buildings into the site available. The Commission approved the design, subject to further study of the entrance, and with the suggestions that a model be made of it. The Commission reported to Mr. Hunter, as follows: The architect members of the Commission regretted the narrowness of the space between the Pharmacy Building and the adjoining building, which gave the appearance of an alley. They thought it might improve the situation if a garden wall were introduced to join the two buildings visually. Consideration should also be given to a landscape plan for the building. The Commission recommends that a model be made of the entrance doorway. Subject to the above considerations, the Commission approved the design. CENTRAL DENTAL LABORATORY, WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER Under date of April 28, 1952, the following letter, together with design, drawings were received from Colonel Alan J. McCutchen, District Engineer, for comment and advice: Included herewith, for your information, is a copy of a rendering of the Central Dental Laboratory proposed for construction at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. The proposed building will be located at the intersection of Hostess House Drive and Aspen Drive, adjacent to existing building No. 83A. The building will be of permanent construction with red brick faced masonry bearing walls on concrete footings. Copings and exterior window trim will be limestone. Steps will be flagstone. Retaining walls will be red brick to match the building. The Commission inspected the design and approved it. ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY, ARMY MEDICAL CENTER At a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, held on June 25, 1951, Colonel Alan J. McCutchen, District Engineer, accompanied by Mr. Kingsbury, submitted a design for this building, together with building plot plan and letter describing the project, as follows: There is being submitted for your consideration and comments a project for the construction of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. This construction was authorized and funds amounting to $7,430,000 were appropriated by the present Congress. The Institute of Pathology was requested by the Surgeon General, Department of the Army to replace the present Institute and increase the scope of the activities. The present activities are now carried on in one permanent and several temporary buildings located at 11th and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology will serve the Army, Navy and Air Force under a joint board of directors operating under the jurisdiction of the Commanding General, United States Army Medical Center. The directive for construction requires that the design will conform with specifications to be established by the National Security Resources Board relative to bombing attacks in the locality. The specifications require the use of "12 inch reinforced concrete exterior walls for protected area" and that "veneered exterior wall must be kept to an absolute minimum consistent with the intent of bombing requirements." The architect-engineer employed to prepare the design and plans for construction has developed a structure which complies with the structural requirements of the criteria and provides an interior arrangement of the functions of the activity which has been accepted by the Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army. The building plan is generally rectangular in shape with smaller extensions to the north and south which contain windows and are not bombproof. The extensions are isolated from the main building by bombproof doors. The main structure is about 200 feet (N.S.) long, 100 feet (E.W.) wide and 80 feet (six stories) above ground level. It is windowless and has bomb protection for all exterior openings. The building is located in the northwest corner of the Walter Reed General Hospital Reservation, adjoining Alaska Avenue on the north and one block east of 16th Street and Rock Creek Park. The extreme top of the penthouse is about elevation 435 and the average ground level is about 355. The main entrance will be from the west and the exterior will be concrete integrally finished and with architectural treatment to relieve the monotony of a large smooth surface. In view of the urgency of the need for this facility for the Department of Defense effort, it is desired that this Commission express its views on the structure and its location at this time for the benefit of the project and for use in continuance of the design and plans. Colonel McCutchen said that there is a conflict of opinion in his group about the treatment of the exterior. Agreement could not be reached as to whether it should be poured concrete or pre-cast stone that would give it some texture and color. The Commission approved the design. After having reviewed various suggestions regarding textures, the Commission expressed its preference for a limestone exterior. Colonel McCutchen was advised accordingly. The building, which is now under construction, is "the first deliberately planned atomic resistant structure in Washington. It is windowless, of heavily reinforced concrete, eight stories high, with three of its floors below ground. Two "expendable” office wings are attached. These are separated from the main core by steel blast doors. The building possesses its own emergency power plant. Almost half of its six and a half million dollar cost is chargeable to mechanical and electrical elements." One of its design engineers gives this further description: The bomb damage protection, the exclusion of windows, the use of massive exterior walls, the need for high intensity lighting, the heavy heating appliance loads, the variety of activities in the occupied area, the need for flexibility in the floor plan arrangements and the introduction of mezzanine floors are features that affect the mechanical and electrical installations. In fact there are combined in this building all the activities ordinarily found individually in office buildings, research laboratories, hospitals, printing establishments, educational centers and public buildings, plus the extraordinary features of its architectural and structural design. The Corps of Engineers reports: The building is scheduled for completion in 1954. It will then become the permanent repository of valuable pathological records and specimens, as well as the pathological research, consultation and higher education center for the medical services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and for civilian medical associations. DOMICILIARY BUILDING, SOLDIERS' HOME At a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, held on June 25, 1951, Colonel Alan J. McCutchen, District Engineer, presented a perspective, by Porter and Sons, architects, for a series of buildings of a domiciliary character at Soldiers' Home. Colonel McCutchen stated that in 1947 there had been submitted to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts in joint session a design for a group of domiciliary buildings; and so far as he knew no objection was registered, but no report has been received concerning them. The central building was being placed under contract; the excavations had been begun for one building. It was to have a limestone exterior. The design suggested an apartment building with wings; it had a compact plan. Professor Belluschi said he considered the design outmoded, and he believed the project should be redesigned. Professor Hudnut said: "You have the whole countryside to work on and there is no reason to cause that congestion. The courts should be developed as open courts with grass and trees, not with a glaring hard roof for the poor patients to look down on all the time. There is no chance for cross ventilation and no air." It was ascertained later in the day that the design had not been considered at a joint session of the two Commissions, but that the National Capital Park and Planning Commisison had considered the design at a meeting held in October 1951; the fact that it had not been referred to the Commission of Fine Arts was an oversight. The Commission of Fine Arts reported to Colonel McCutchen as follows: June 27, 1951. Dear Colonel MCCUTCHEN: The Commission, at its meeting on June 25th, was very glad to see the view in perspective of the large building which is soon to be constructed at the Soldiers' Home. We appreciate your courtesy in showing us the sketch of the building, which is our first authoritative information concerning this important project. The Commission has asked me to give their views and a frank statement of their criticism of the design, and hope that it is not too late for some of their ideas to be embodied in the structure. As regards the general conception of the building, the Commission feel that the proposed structure is unnecessarily complex in design and runs counter to the present, and almost universally favored, movement in the direction of "open planning" in buildings of this kind. As a result of the height of the proposed building and the excessive crowding of various units, the group of buildings presents an institutional appearance which, in our opinion, should be avoided, if possible. The views of the veterans from many of the windows will be monotonous, especially where the windows look on roofs of the various units, instead of the court yards, which could be planted in such a way as to add to the comfort and pleasure of those living in the building. We feel that the design would benefit by revision of many of the details of the exterior of the building. Insofar as was possible to study them in the perspective view which was shown to us, many of these features appear inappropriate and unnecessarily expensive. I am sure I do not need to assure you that the members of the Commission appreciates the difficulties with which you are confronted in making a design for the building, such as the problems of control and servicing, the semi-invalidism of many of the veterans, and the need for economy of operating personnel. You doubtless share our regret that the accommodations provided for the veterans could not be spread over a wider area, so that they could live in closer contact with the ground. In spite of these difficulties, we are strongly of the opinion that the extreme concentration exhibited by the plan that was shown us is not justified in view of the use which is to be made of the building. The present membership of the Commission includes the Dean of the School of Architecture and Planning at Harvard University, the Dean of the corresponding department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a site planner with long experience in private and public work. All of them, and the other members of the Commission, join me in urging that every possible effort be made to improve the design of the building in accordance with the ideas which have been outlined above. The next meeting of the Commission will be held on July 19th. While the members of the Commission are normally available only at the time of our fixed meetings, I shall try in the interval to secure from the members such further comments as you may desire, if you will send up the latest site plans and elevation drawings for the proposed building. For the Commission of Fine Arts: Sincerely yours, DAVID E. FINLEY, Chairman. Colonel ALAN J. MCCUTCHEN, District Engineer, Washington District 1st and Douglas Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. At a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, held on January 10, 1952, Colonel Alan J. McCutchen, District Engineer, submitted a letter with a design (Scheme A) embodying suggestions made by the Commission at a meeting held on November 29, 1951, regarding the treatment of the center portion of the Soldiers' Home Hospital Building. It had been suggested to push the center portion of the building back, but Colonel McCutchen pointed out that while this was possible it produced a bad building from a functional standpoint. There was considerable discussion as to the material for the exterior, and the use of limestone was strongly recommended. The Commission finally agreed to accept the original design considered at the meeting held on October 25, 1951, subject to the following changes, which were explained to the architect, and to which he generally agreed: 1. Eliminate the canter on all four corners of the central portion of the building, simplify its design and eliminate the many minor breaks, have the solarium not quite so deep, which would improve its usefulness, and have it extended to the full width of the center part, if possible. 2. The use of limestone to face the building. A report was sent to Colonel McCutchen by letter dated January 31, 1952, accordingly. Mr. Hunter pointed out the location, and discussed the features of the design in detail. He said the main hospital building is to provide 800 beds. There will be a nurses' home connected with it to accommodate 300 nurses. There will be an auditorium, a small hospital for crippled children, and also a building for spastic children. The buildings will have a maximum height of 90 feet. The grounds will have roadways connected with the Highway Plan of the District, and will be properly landscaped. There will be a parking lot to accommodate 1,000 autos. The buildings will be built of brick with limestone trim. Windows will be small to eliminate as much as possible flying glass in case of an outside shock. There will be inside corridors of concrete eight inches thick. Mr. Hunter said the sketches were in preliminary form. Eventually this development will be expanded to a 1,200-bed hospital, with possibility of further enlargement when necessary. After some further discussion, the Commission approved the design. The Commission particularly appreciated the opportunity to see the design in its preliminary stage. BARRACKS BUILDING, WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT At a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, held on February 26, 1952, the Commission inspected a perspective and a set of working drawings, submitted by Arthur L. Anderson, architect, 1726 M Street NW., for a proposed barracks building to house 500 airmen on the grounds west of the Washington National Airport. The proposed structure is to replace temporary buildings now there. The architect members of the Commission gave the design particular attention. They expressed keen regret and disappointment that plans for such a project should be brought to the Commission at this late stage. They were not satisfied with the plans to locate this and future buildings in that area, and felt that a new study should be made. The Commission unanimously recommended that a restudy of the design be made. The Commission also expressed preference for a facade of concrete rather than the proposed one of cinder blocks and brick panels. The Commission reported to Mr. Anderson on March 4, 1952: The designs for the Washington National Airport received careful study by The Commission of Fine Arts, and the Commission feels that the proposed building, even though it is to be used for barracks purposes, should be in keeping with the main airport building. The Commission, therefore, would have been glad to consider your plans at an earlier stage, rather than in the stage of working drawings, as submitted on February 25th. The members of the Commission were of the opinion that a more economical building and a more satisfactory result could have been achieved if plans for the building had been submitted to the Commission at an earlier date. The Commission of Fine Arts understands that a restudy of the design has been recommended, and in this the Commission unanimously concurs. The members of the Commission feel that an improvement can be made in the grouping of the buildings, and also that a new site plan should be prepared. The Commission would also prefer a facade of concrete rather than one of cinder blocks and brick panels as proposed. ARLINGTON FARMS AREA Under date of May 20, 1952, the following letter was received from Colonel James B. Clearwater, Chief of the Memorial Division, Office of the Quartermaster General, Department of the Army: Reference is made to your letter, dated 8 March 1948, in which it is stated that Plan No. 6608-146 of July 24, proposing the expansion of Arlington National Cemetery to include what is known as the Arlington Farms Area, is still an active plan of the Commission of Fine Arts. In the near future this office plans to request that the Arlington Farms Area, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, be assigned to the Office of The Quartermaster General for use in five-year requirement increments, commencing in approximately 1969, for the expansion of Arlington National Cemetery. It is believed that a current statement of the position of the Commission of Fine Arts as to the proposed use of the Arlington Farms tract would be helpful in making a definite determination as to the ultimate use of this area. It is therefore requested that this office be informed as to whether Plan No. 6608-146 still has the approval of the Commission. At a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, held on July 2, 1952, the Commission inspected a print of Plan No. 6608-146, dated July 1924. The Secretary stated that the plan was made by Mr. James L. Greenleaf, landscape architect member of the Commission of Fine Arts at that time, and that, as was shown on the plan, it had received the approval of Dwight Davis, Secretary of War. This occurred before the Arlington Memorial Bridge was built and at that time it was proposed to place the great entrance to the Arlington National Cemetery at the banks of the Potomac. It was also planned to give the Arlington Farms area a park-like treatment. The Commission decided that the plan still merited the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts, and Colonel Clearwater was informed accordingly. UNITED STATES ARMY HOSPITAL AT FORT BELVOIR Under date of January 5, 1953, a letter of complaint was received from Major General Ulysses S. Grant 3d (retired), Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Capital, stating that it was proposed to build a 500-bed hospital at Fort Belvoir, Va., of concrete blocks, in the midst of a group of "colonial buildings" that had been erected with the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts some 20 years ago, when Fort Belvoir was known as Fort Humphreys. The matter was considered at a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts held on February 3, 1953, and the Commission designated Mr. Neild and Mr. de Weldon as a committee to confer with the Commanding General, Major General Scott, and to make a report. Mr. Neild reported at a meeting of the Commission held on March 10th, as follows: Mr. de Weldon and I visited the Commandant of Fort Belvoir on February 4th to talk with him about the proposed hospital to be built on the reservation. Colonel McCutchen, District Engineer, and other members of the staff, also were present. They showed us preliminary or incomplete drawings of the hospital. It is to be constructed of monolithic concrete in parts and other parts of concrete blocks. It is not a building that will stand the test of time as the drawings would indicate and it is certainly a building that is not in keeping with the permanent construction at Fort Belvoir, which is red brick and stone, simple in design and not displeasing. I asked General Scott and his aides if it would be possible to ask for and receive alternate proposals for use of other materials. They said that it would. It is apparent, from looking at the drawings, if the completed drawings are made general as these preliminary drawings would indicate, a change in material is going to involve a change in construction. We were told that this building is designed as a typical 500-bed hosiptal, and that wherever they may need another one they will use the same plan over and over again. It is known as the “austerity type" of building. Personally, I think the building is entirely unsuited to the site; it is not a first class build ing at all. I would not design such a building for my section of the country. That is my feeling about it. The Commission concurred in the report, and asked Chairman Finley to draft a letter to be sent to the Secretary of Defense, protesting against the use of concrete blocks for facing, and recommending instead the use of brick. A letter which read as follows was sent: March 6, 1953. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The Commission of Fine Arts has received a leter from Major General Ulysses S. Grant, 3d, (Retired), Chairman of the Joint Committee for the National Capital, protesting against the materials being used in the erection of a building for a Veterans' Hospital on the Fort Belvoir Reservation in Virginia. The hospital, which is to be a large one, containing 500 beds, is to be faced with concrete blocks and is to be located near the main entrance road at Fort Belvoir. About twenty-five years ago the Commission of Fine Arts was requested by the War Department to advise in the matter of design for a group of new buildings to be erected at Fort Belvoir, then known as Fort Humphreys. The Commission recommended a type of brick buildings, which was adopted by the War Department for this group of buildings and has been adhered to until now. As a result, the Reservation has been harmoniously developed and presents a distinctive and impressive appearance. These buildings are in close proximity to Mount Vernon and also to Woodlawn Plantation, which is one of the important historic houses in this country and is administered by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. If a large hospital, faced with concrete blocks, is erected as part of the group of buildings now at Fort Belvoir, the result, from an aesthetic point of view, would be unfortunate. While the Commission realizes the necessity for economy at this time, we would regret to see a building erected which would remain for many years and would create a precedent for other buildings of a similar type which might be erected in the future. The Commission hope that you may find it possible to direct that the proposed hospital shall be faced with brick, rather than concrete blocks, and made to conform to the type of a building now in existence at Fort Belvoir. For the Commission of Fine Arts: DAVID E. FINLEY, Chairman. Honorable CHARLES E. WILSON, CANADIAN EMBASSY BUILDING Under date of June 5, 1953, the following letter was received from Faulkner, Kingsbury, and Stenhouse, associate architects, represented by Mr. Stenhouse: |