The

This proposal results from a request of the Commission of Fine Arts that the Second Commercial portion of the frontage on the south side of M Street be studied and changed to a First Commercial classification. request has been activated by what is termed by the Commission difficulties in the adoption of a long range architectural plan for the renovation and restoration of M Street westward from 28th Street. The Commission states that these difficulties are caused by the difference in the zoning classification along the north side of M Street which is First Commercial.

The staff of the Zoning Commission completed its survey on September 21st finding facts as follows:

The total frontage involved from 29th to 34th Streets is 2,365 linear feet abutting M Street. Of this frontage all but 140 feet or 6% is used for commercial purposes. This 6% includes 7 dwellings and one unimproved lot. All of the dwellings are old and in rundown condition. 565 feet or 24% of the frontage is used or designed for Second Commercial purposes or for quasi-Second Commercial use. There were no vacancies in this category at the time of survey. The remaining frontage constituting 1,660 feet or 70% of the total is designed or used for First Commercial purposes. 10% of it aggregating a total of 7 buildings, were unoccupied at the time of survey.

Although no survey was made on the north side of the street a few store vacancies were noted and several buildings are used for residential purposes. With the exception of one renovated building for residential use at the corner of 35th Street (beyond the survey area) there was no indication of any trend of conversion of commercial buildings for residential use nor any evidence of razing for such purpose.

The use of M Street property in this area has in modern times been subjected to at least two widely separated stages of shopping habit. Beginning from the pre-zoning era and continuing to approximately 1935 Georgetown and particularly M Street but also including a portion of lower Wisconsin Avenue was the most convenient shopping center for nearby residents of Montgomery and Arlington Counties. During this period all types of local and service business thrived, store space was at a premium and there was no problem of over-commercialization. Following the commercial development of the two county areas there was a noticeable decrease in transient business for the Georgetown area. As these outlying shopping centers became more and more self-contained and automobile ownership more numerous, transient shopping habits in the Georgetown area finally reached the point where business had become dependent upon only a very limited number of persons residing outside the area. Α considerable number of transfers in tenancy resulted, and more numerous vacancies were created with a resulting decrease in property values and taxable income. The completion of the Whitehurst Freeway several years ago marked the beginning of what is now apparently a third trend. With the loss of much through west bound traffic along M Street the merchants have become dependent almost entirely upon the business of

local and neighborhood shoppers. This has been particularly true with respect to the south side of the Street within the area here under consideration, and now poses a serious problem as to what, in the public interest, is the best zoning solution. From the history and the facts outlined the Council draws these conclusions:

1. The property on both sides of the street is currently used or developed at least 95% for commercial purposes.

2. There is no trend toward conversion of commercial buildings to residential uses.

3. There is apparently already an over-supply of First Commercial zoning along M Street, as there are First Commercial use vacancies in both existing First Commercial area and in the Second Commercial

area.

4. There are no Second Commercial vacancies in the M Street area as zoned.

5. Due to the greater number of uses permitted in the Second Commercial District, there is more possibility that some may become objectionable and affect property values adversely if not properly controlled. Except for one use, the junk yard, none of these permitted uses are objectionable per se.

6. Approval of the change here proposed will result in availability for a lesser number of commercial uses and will tend toward a reduction in property values with a resulting decrease in District revenues.

7. The plan suggested by the Fine Arts Commission is fully comprehensive. However, the existing plan on the basis of transition treatment approaching a waterfront industrial area is equally comprehensive.

The facts available to the Council at this time appear insufficient to justify the rezoning requested. The Council accordingly recommends denial without prejudice and a reconsideration of the case should the Fine Arts Commission, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Citizen's groups or others be able to submit additional factual data not now available to the Council.

The Council also recommends that the Commission, as soon as feasible and practicable, initiate proceedings to prohibit the establishment of junk yards in the Second Commercial area. (E. D. 263824). R. O. CLOUSER,

JOHN NOLEN, Jr. (dissenting),
T. J. HAYES.

The Commission of Fine Arts sent the following letter to the Zoning Commission on November 21, 1951:

DEAR SIRS: The following is a statement of this Commission's reasons for proposing to the Zoning Commission that the zoning of a strip of land along the south side of M Street in Georgetown be changed from First Commercial to Second Commercial.

The disparity between the zoning of the north and south sides of M Street was brought to our attention by the group of architects who assist us in cases arising under the "Old Georgetown Law." That law requires the Commission of Fine Arts, when applications are made to the District officials for permits to de

molish, remodel, or build structures in the specified area, to advise the Commissioners of the District concerning the effect of the proposed work on the protection and preservation of the historic values of Old Georgetown.

In view of the wording used in the law and of the generally accepted practice of experts in the preservation of buildings and towns, we believe that the desire of Congress is to create a harmonious setting for the old buildings of the area-not merely to preserve them individually. We therefore take a community view of each case; we try to secure the preservation of groups of buildings and to save buildings of secondary value when they form an appropriate setting for more important old structures. At the same time we are anxious to see Georgetown continue to be busy, prosperous, and alive.

Taking this approach and believing that it is our duty to maintain a broad and long view of the objectives defined by Congress, we have shared the concern of all Georgetown residents as to the condition of M Street.

In recent years M Street has declined in activity and appearance. What makes this especially deplorable is that M Street is a portal street to Georgetown; many people gain their impression of the town from this street alone. Further, it is historically the central and most important shopping street of the area and still contains many buildings of architectural and historical interest.

In spite of the street's present condition many residents of Georgetown see signs of improvement and have confident hopes for the future. Several excellent stores seem well established, and a number of rehabilitations--even on the south side of the streethave taken place in recent months. The principal basis for optimism, however, is the great and continuing growth in the purchasing power of the people of Georgetown. This has not yet been expressed in the shopping habits of the neighborhood, perhaps for the reason that the commercial facilities have not become adjusted to the character of this potential business. We are told by city planners that such an adjustment would be encouraged by-and might even be dependent upon-the proposed change in zoning.

The interest of the Commission of Fine Arts in this situation, under the Old Georgetown law, lies in two directions. First, we are anxious to have M Street become again a healthy and attractive street, playing the role it played in old-time Georgetown. Second, we should like to see the old buildings put to uses that will facilitate their preservation.

The first of these motives, though not specifically within the scope of the law, is important to the full realization of its intent. A street which at night is lined with bright show windows and full of activity on one side, while the opposite sidewalk is little used and the windows are mostly dark, is a street which is only half alive.

The second motive mentioned above relates directly to our legal responsibility. It is true, of course, that second commercial areas are covered, just as much as first commercial, by the Old Georgetown Law. If rezoning is denied, the Commissioners of the District, with the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts, will continue to act under the law, effecting the preservation of old buildings and the appropriate design of new ones to the extent possible in each individual case. Yet it must be recognized that the occupations characteristic of the second commercial district are not well adapted to the application of this procedure. In the second commercial classification one finds heavy construction, unusual story-heights, and large yards for work and storage. These conditions inevitably conflict-much more than retail commerce does-with the older existing structures. In the present case, since most of the old buildings on the south side of M Street were designed for retail and residential use, a change to first commercial would definitely facilitate the preservation or acceptable remodeling of the old structures and the harmonious design of new ones.

We are anxious that the change, if adopted, may interfere just as little as possible with the operation and growth of existing businesses. A strip one hundred feet wide would be sufficient and the Zoning Commission may find that an even narrower strip would meet the essential purpose of our proposal.

Property owners in the area affected by the proposed change have laid before the Zoning Commission a statement of the losses-in property values and other forms which they anticipate will be caused by the change. It is, of course, the function of the Zoning Commission to determine whether these sacrifices are reasonable or unreasonable. We would not, however, have suggested the change if we did not believe that it is necessary for the most effective compliance with the Old Georgetown Law. And we are confident that the law, though it may cause hardships in some cases, will ultimately be of great benefit to the people of Georgetown.

Sincerely yours,

DAVID E. FINLEY.

T

HE Commission of Fine Arts met with President Truman, at his request, in the Cabinet Room of the White House, on January 25, 1951, to discuss with him the advisability of a survey, by the Commission, of activities carried on by the Federal Government in the field of art. Subsequently the President requested the Commission to conduct such a survey and to submit recommendations as to how such activities could be coordinated or further developed under normal conditions and during periods of emergency induced by war.

The Commission held conferences, in connection with its regular monthly meetings, using only the staff of the Commission and the funds available in its normal budget with which to record and print the testimony and the recommendations of the Commission.

As no funds were available for travel or other expenses of witnesses, the Commission invited. testimony from officials of various departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and received information from members of certain foreign embassies in Washington as to the manner in which art activities are carried on under government auspices in their respective countries. The Commission also invited testimony and advice from many private organizations engaged in art activities in the United States. These organizations, at the request of the Commission, formed an advisory panel and, at their own expense, sent representatives to Washington to present their views to the Commission. From all concerned the Commission received the utmost cooperation. The resulting testimony, filling four volumes, covered a wide range of activities in the field of art. It comprised a valuable record of what was being done in this field under Government auspices and has proved of the greatest value to the Commission in making its recommendations.

The Report was sent to the President, who expressed his appreciation of it by letter as follows:

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 24, 1953.

DEAR DR. FINLEY: The report of the Commission of Fine Arts on the survey of Governmental activity in the field of art, made in accordance with the request of the President on January 26, 1951, has just reached my desk.

Please accept for yourself, and express to the members of your Commission, my gratitude for the comprehensive and valuable document you have submitted. With warm regard,

Sincerely,

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

Dr. DAVID E. FINLEY,
The Commission of Fine Arts,
Interior Department Building,
Washington, D.C.

The Report was printed and was made available to the public, with a statement by Chairman Finley, which in part reads as follows:

The Commission of Fine Arts, at the request of the President, has been engaged for more than two years in making a survey of the activities of the Federal Government in the field of art.

The Commission has received testimony and advice from various organizations and individuals, including Government officials and representatives of certain foreign governments and also of organizations in this country concerned with art. This testimony and advice, of which a summary may be found in the Report, have been considered by the Commission and have been of great assistance in arriving at its conclusions. The conclusions and recommendations, however, as set forth in the Report, are those of the Commission of Fine Arts.

The Commission recognizes that certain recommendations in the Report can be carried out only over a period of many years. The Commission realizes also that, in view of the necessity for economy at the present time, recommendations for new construction or increased activities on the part of Government agencies must, in many cases, be held in abeyance until they can be accommodated within the fiscal and budgetary policies of the President and the Congress.

page 99

The Commission sent a copy of the Report to each member of Congress, to heads of Departments and Agencies of the Government, and to leaders in the fine arts throughout the United States. Others are being supplied by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., with copies at the price of $1.00 each.

The following is a brief Summary of the Recommendations made by the Commission:

SUMMARY

THE COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

The Commission recommends that, insofar as the Commission of Fine Arts is concerned, no change should be made in its basic character and that its function should continue to be of an advisory nature, as heretofore. The Commission holds that the special role for which it was created would be compromised and, perhaps, destroyed if it should be given large sums to administer in the manner of arts councils and ministries of fine art in other countries, where art is subsidized by governmental appropriations and there is a concentration of authority such as has not existed in this field in the United States. The Commission believes that such Government funds as are available for art activities should be disbursed by the official agencies to which these activities have been entrusted.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

The Commission recommends that an office should be established in the National Gallery of Art for the exchange of art exhibitions between this and other countries. In carrying on such activities the National Gallery should work in cooperation with the National Collection of Fine Arts and the Freer Gallery, both of which, as well as the National Gallery of Art, are part of the Smithsonian Institution. For the operation of such an office, funds should be made available by allocation from the Department of State under the Smith-Mundt Act, or by appropriation of funds by the Congress for this purpose.

THE NATIONAL COLLECTION OF FINE ARTS

The Commission recommends that The National Collection of Fine Arts, Smithsonian Institution, should be given funds with which

to purchase annually works of contemporary artists, particularly American artists. It should organize continually changing exhibitions of these works of art in Washington, and should make them available to all parts of the country through traveling exhibitions, thus promoting understanding of American art and artists and bringing American art into closer relationship with the life of the community. In the formulation of its programs, it should seek competent professional advice from societies of artists and museums of art. An adequate building should be provided to house the National Collection of Fine Arts.

ART EDUCATION

The Commission recommends that the Government's museums, particularly the National Gallery of Art, The National Collection of Fine Arts, and the Freer Gallery of Art, should be given funds with which to make color reproductions, photographs, slides, and motion pictures of their collections available to public schools and colleges throughout this country; also that the Government's museums, The Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Music Division of the Library of Congress should be given funds for use in radio and television broadcasts in the fields of music and the visual arts.

BUDGETS

The Commission recommends that, in the case of establishments, such as the Smithsonian Institution with its important museums and irreplaceable collections, it should be the recognized policy of the Bureau of the Budget, as at present, to provide, in budgets submitted to the Congress, at least the amount requested for the operation of the buildings and the protection and exhibition of the collections, and that this sum should not be subject to across-the-board reductions of appropriations or personnel. The Commission pointed out that for the fiscal year just ended (1953) the total amount of Government funds appropriated for the Smithsonian Institution (for all its museums of art, history and science, including the National Gallery of Art) was $3,847,550; and that, of this amount, $1,538,050 was available for the art activities of the various establishments of the Smithsonian Institution.