Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
143605642
label
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
143605642
contentType
document
title
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (2)
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Special Files
subjects
United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.)
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
143605642
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-02-28
month
2
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-05-01
month
5
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
dd4d2fe82621b0fa
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box J30, folder "West Front Extension: General,
1965-1973 (2)" of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers, 1948-1973 at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box J30 of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers, 1948-1973 at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
First
Press Release by the
Architect of the Capitol,
Washington, D. C.
November 21, 1967
EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE WORK, WEST CENTRAL FRONT,
UNITED STATES CAPITOL
FORD di LIBRARY GERALD
The most obviously dangerous and deteriorated sections of the old
sandstone West Central Front of the Capitol were provided with temporary
shoring in the summer of 1965. Since that time, personnel of the Office
of the Architect of the Capitol have kept a close watch for further signs
of failure in the structure.
On October 19, 1967, it was noticed that one section of the archi-
trave on the portico (in one of the bays not previously requiring bracing)
was sagging and cracked.
The Architect of the Capitol immediately brought the matter to the
attention of the Congressional Commission on the Capitol and recommended
that Dr. Miles N. Clair, President of Thompson and Lichtner Company, who
made the earlier engineering study and supervised the placing of the
shoring in 1965, be called on to again inspect the West Front and advise
what action, if any, should be taken. The Commission approved the
recommendation.
Dr. Clair inspected the West Front on October 23, 1967, and submitted
his report of November 8, 1967. He recommended:
1. Putting temporary posts (heavy timbers) under the
remaining unsupported architrave stones of the portico;
-2-
2. Installing additional shoring and bracing to the old
Senate and House Sections;
3. Repointing joints, filling cracks, and repainting the
stone masonry to protect it against weathering, and
establishing points for observation of movement
of the structure and recording the location of same.
The estimate of cost for this emergency work is $135,000 and Dr.
Clair recommended that the work begin in the Spring of 1968.
Inasmuch as this work is of an urgent nature to protect the Capitol,
pending final action on a permanent solution by the Congress, the Archi-
tect of the Capitol urged the Capitol Commission (1) to follow the
advice of Dr. Clair and (2) to agree to request the $135,000 required
in the final supplemental appropriation bill this year so funds would be
available to begin the work next Spring.
The Commission unanimously approved this course of action and the
Architect is proceeding accordingly.
FORD LIBRARY if GERALD
Press Release by the
Architect of the Capitol,
Washington, D. C.
November 21, 1967
EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE WORK, WEST CENTRAL FRONT,
UNITED STATES CAPITOL
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The most obviously dangerous and deteriorated sections of the old
sandstone West Central Front of the Capitol were provided with temporary
shoring in the summer of 1965. Since that time, personnel of the Office
of the Architect of the Capitol have kept a close watch for further signs
of failure in the structure.
On October 19, 1967, it was noticed that one section of the archi-
trave on the portico (in one of the bays not previously requiring bracing)
was sagging and cracked.
The Architect of the Capitol immediately brought the matter to the
attention of the Congressional Commission on the Capitol and recommended
that Dr. Miles N. Clair, President of Thompson and Lichtner Company, who
made the earlier engineering study and supervised the placing of the
shoring in 1965, be called on to again inspect the West Front and advise
what action, if any, should be taken. The Commission approved the
recommendation.
Dr. Clair inspected the West Front on October 23, 1967, and submitted
his report of November 8, 1967. He recommended:
1. Putting temporary posts (heavy timbers) under the
remaining unsupported architrave stones of the portico;
-2-
2. Installing additional shoring and bracing to the old
Senate and House Sections;
3. Repointing joints, filling cracks, and repainting the
stone masonry to protect it against weathering, and
establishing points for observation of movement
of the structure and recording the location of same.
The estimate of cost for this emergency work is $135,000 and Dr.
Clair recommended that the work begin in the Spring of 1968.
Inasmuch as this work is of an urgent nature to protect the Capitol,
pending final action on a permanent solution by the Congress, the Archi-
tect of the Capitol urged the Capitol Commission (1) to follow the
advice of Dr. Clair and (2) to agree to request the $135,000 required
in the final supplemental appropriation bill this year so funds would be
available to begin the work next Spring.
The Commission unanimously approved this course of action and the
Architect is proceeding açcordingly.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
Med Find
November 14, 1967
Honorable John W. McCormack, Chairman
Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol
Washington, D. C.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Reference is made to memorandum of October 19, 1967, to you from Mr.
Campioli, reporting additional cracking and sagging of certain portions
of the West Central Front of the Capitol and requesting permission to
obtain a further examination by and the advice of Dr. Clair.
You approved the request, with the understanding that other Members
of the Commission also approved such action. All other Members of the
Commission did approve the proposed action by the following morning and
Dr. Clair examined the sandstone portion of the West Front on October 23,
1967. After returning to his office and reviewing his previous analysis
and comparing the data with current conditions, he submitted letter of
November 8, 1967, copy of which is enclosed.
Dr. Clair recommends (1) posting the remaining unsupported architrave
stones of the portico of the central section; (2) installing additional
shoring and bracing to the old Senate and House walls; and (3) repointing
joints, filling cracks and repainting the stone masonry to protect it
against weathering. He also recommends establishing points for observation
of movement of the structure and recording location of same.
-2-
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dr. Clair estimates that this proposed temporary work will cost
approximately $125,000. I concur in this estimate, but would like $10,000
added for supervision and administration by my office, making a total of
$135,000.
Dr. Clair recommends that this work begin in the spring of 1968. It
would be necessary, therefore, that funds be requested in the final supple-
mental appropriation bill this year.
Inasmuch as this work is of an urgent nature to protect the Capitol
pending final action by the Congress on a permanent solution, I urge your
approval and the approval of other Members of the Commission, of (1) follow-
ing Dr. Clair's advice and (2) requesting $135,000 in the final supplemental
for this purpose.
I am sending copies of this report to Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey,
Honorable Everett M. Dirksen, and Honorable Gerald R. Ford.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
J. George Stewart
Architect of the Capitol
ULT.
MARK TING
MANAGEMENT
SURVEYS
RESEARCH
DESIGN
SUPERVISION
TESTING
INSPECTION
THE THOMPSON & LICHTNER Co., INC.
Engineers
8 ALTON PLACE, BROOKLINE, MASS. 02146
POTENTIAL
POWER
Telephone 232-2105
Area Code 617
November 8, 1967
The Honorable J. George Stewart
Architect of the Capitol
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Mr. Stewart:
We visually examined, at your request, the
architrave of the portico of the West Front of the Capitol on
October 23, 1967 in order to advise you as to whether supports
should be provided immediately in addition to those installed
in 1965. Examination was made also of the walls of the old
Senate and House wings that had been shored in 1965 at the
Terrace level.
We found considerable new cracking and peeling
of paint and deterioration of joints and some additional cracks
in the stone masonry since the examination for our report of
November 1, 1964. The end of the stone of the architrave,
center bay, that showed 7/16" settlement (Sheet 26-6 of report
of November 1, 1964) appears to have settled further. Cracks
were noted in the plaster of the west side walls of rooms
S-336, S-339, H-329-A and H-330. The posts under the archi-
trave stones and the shoring for the walls of the Senate and
House wings appeared to be in good condition, tight and to
have performed as intended.
THE THOMPSON & LICHTNER CO., INC.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
The Honorable J. George Stewart
November 8, 1967
We advised, when the emergency posting, shor-
ing and bracing was done in 1965, that it was intended to take
care of conditions for not over three years within which period
it was expected that work would proceed on a permanent repair
or reconstruction. Since no decision has been reached on this
matter and there are indications of further deterioration and
movement of the masonry we recommend that you plan for the
spring of 1968 to (1) post the remaining unsupported architrave
stones of the portico of the central section of the West Front
(2) install additional shoring and bracing to the old Senate and
House walls (3) repoint joints, fill cracks and repaint the
stone masonry to protect it against weathering. In addition to
the above the Recommendation #19 of Vol. 1 of our report of
November 1, 1964 relative to obtaining a record of movement of
the West Side of the Capitol should be immediately implemented
so that there is available data on the basis of which an evalu-
ation can be made of the movement of the structure and proper
steps taken from time to time as needed to prevent failure.
The cost of work recommended above is estimated
to be $125,000.00.
THE THOMPSON & LICHTNER CO., INC.
-3-
The Honorable J. George Stewart
November 8, 1967
Establishment of points for observation of
movement of the structure and recording
location of same
$ 5,000.00
Post remaining stones of architrave (3 points)
and shore old Senate and old House wings at
Terrace level
49,000.00
Repoint, fill cracks and paint West Facade
66,000.00
Engineering Services - Design and Consultation
5,000.00
Total
$ 125,000.00
Respectfully,
ml lehin
FORD is LIBRATY GERALD
MNC:MK
Miles N. Clair, President
THE THOMPSON & LICHTNER CO. INC.
West Front
Commission
ok.
October 19, 1967
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Honorable John W. McCormack,
Speaker of the House of Representatives
My attention was called this morning to a cracked and sagging
piece of the architrave at the center of the old Central West Front of
the Capitol. This is in a general area where certain temporary shoring
was installed two years ago, but at that time this particular area did
not show need for shoring.
This could develop into a very serious condition if immediate
action is not taken.
I have discussed this matter by telephone with Mr. Stewart and
we agree that we should attempt to get Dr. Clair down immediately and
follow his advice. It is likely that he will recommend that shoring be
placed under this sagging section of the architrave.
L
Mr. Stewart asked that I. contact you and obtain your concur-
rence with the action proposed and then alert the other Members of the
Commission.
We have no available balance in Extension of the Capitol funds,
but with your approval, we can use our Contingency Punds since this is an
emergency condition.
We would appreciate your immediate advice on this matter.
Mario E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol
PLR/esb
cc: Mr. Campioli
Mr. Roof
Mr. Henlock
10-20-67 @ 1:20 Told Mr. clancy that this
was of with Mr. Ford
West Front Commission
ok.
October 19, 1967
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Honorable John W. McCormack,
Speaker of the House of Representatives
My attention was called this morning to a cracked and sagging
piece of the architrave at the center of the old Central West Front of
the Capitol. This is in a general area where certain temporary shoring
was installed two years ago, but at that time this particular area did
not show need for shoring.
This could develop into a very serious condition if immediate
action is not taken.
I have discussed this matter by telephone with Mr. Stewart and
we agree that we should attempt to get Dr. Clair down immediately and
follow his advice. It is likely that he will recommend that shoring be
placed under this sagging section of the architrave.
L
Mr. Stewart asked that I, contact you and obtain your concur-
rence with the action proposed and then alert the other Members of the
Commission.
We have no available balance in Extension of the Capitol funds,
but with your approval, we can use our Contingency Funds since this is an
emergency condition.
We would appreciate your immediate advice on this matter.
Mario E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol
PLR/esb
cc: Mr. Campioli
Mr. Roof
Mr. Henlock
10-20-67 @ 1:20 Told Mr. clancy that this
was of with Mr, Ford
The Speaker's Rooms
H.S. H. House of Representatives
Mashington, D. 4.
June 21, 1967
Dear Colleague:
I am pleased to send you, herewith, for your information and
files, report relating to the West Central Front of the Capitol,
containing the following:
1. Report and recommendations of the Associate
Architects, covering the preliminary plans
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
and estimates of cost for the Extension of
the West Central Front, in accordance with
Plan II approved by the Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol.
2. Report of the Advisory Architects on Plan II.
3. Summary of the engineering study by The
Thompson & Lichtner Co., Inc., dated
November 1, 1964. This document has been
published previously but is enclosed for
your ready reference.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours
John W. McCormack, Chairman
Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Valume IVis
May 8, 1967
Invid Darathy's
duck.
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Member
Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol
Congress of the United States
Washington, D. C.
Dear Congressman Ford:
I am forwarding, herewith, the following documents:
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
(1) Report and recommendations of the Associate
Architects, covering the preliminary plans and
estimates of cost for the Extension of the West
Central Front of the United States Capitol, in
accordance with Plan II approved by your
Commission at meeting of June 17, 1966.
(2) Report of the Advisory Architects on Plan II.
These are the preliminary plans and estimates of cost which the
Commission approved at meeting of June 17, 1966, and directed that
they be completed and perfected.
I strongly endorse the plans and recommendations of the Associate
and Advisory Architects.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
Jheorge George Stevart Stewant
Architect of the Capitol
Enclosures
4/17/67 - 3:50 p.m.
Mr. Ford
Wesh
Fronk
Mr. Stewart would like to have you look
over and make suggestions and recommendations
before his meeting with Appropriations
Committee on Thursday morning.
1
proced 4-20-67 own
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
West Front of Capitol
We are scheduled to appear before the House Legislative
Subcommittee (Appropriations) next Thursday, 10 A.M., April 20, 1967,
on our regular budget requests.
We will have to submit a summary of the present status of
the project, including a statement on the plans for which Congress
appropriated 300,000.
The Commission approved the tentative Plans known as
SCHEME 2 in June, 1966 and directed that the plans be perfected, the
model completed, and the estimates completed.
The model is on display in Statuary Hall. The plans and
estimated have been completed, but have NOT been submitted to the
Commission.
Question is -- what to say at hearings or what procedure
to follow?
Possibilities
1. Submit plans to Commission now and tell the Appropriations
Committee that such plans have been submitted, but no
further instructions have been received.
2. Submit plans to Commission now and attempt to obtain approval
by signature of each Member of Commission.
3. Hold plans and state that they will be submitted as soon as the
Commission holds its next meeting.
We must keep in mind that regardless of what is done, the
Appro. Committees might ask for full hearings on the plans (the Senate
subcommittee did this last year to some extent).
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
The Octagon, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006
Charles M. Nes, Jr., FAIA
President
2120 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
April 3, 1967
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
United States Capitol
Washington, D. C.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Congressman Ford:
Last year I appointed a five-member Task Force to restudy the
condition of the West Front and the Institute's position with
regard to the Capitol extension.
A Report, based upon the findings and recommendations of the
Task Force, is enclosed.
Tomorrow, this material will be sent to other interested par-
ties and the press.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss our Report with you.
Sincerely yours,
Charles.M.Nes.,Pr Charles. Res.h
Charles M. Nes, Jr.
FAIA
CMN:rdci
Enclosure
Save
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Task?
The
A Fro
its
structural
GERALD R. of FORD LIBRARY
REPORT
ON CONDITIONS OF
on Capitol Congress
THE WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
doe
Front
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
]
A
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
REPORT
ON CONDITIONS OF
THE WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
"In every part of the country, citizens
are rallying to save landmarks of beauty
and history. The government must also
do its share to assist the local efforts."
President Johnson, 1966
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
I.
Introduction - Task Force organized by The American
Institute of Architects to restudy the proposed extension of
the West Front of the Capitol.
II. Conditions of the West Front - The wall is in need of
structural repair but collapse is not imminent.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
III. Space Requirements - Before new space is added to the
Capitol a survey should be made to determine the space needs
of the Congress.
IV. Restoration: An Impossible Task? - The West Front of
the Capitol can be restored and its structural weaknesses
corrected without unacceptable risk.
V. Architecture and Planning on Capitol Hill - Congress
should develop a master plan and authorize a Commission of
experts to review and advise on new construction.
VI. Conclusion: Restore the West Front - Since a decision
will eventually be made not to make further extensions of the
Capitol, Congress should make the decision now while the one
original wall can be saved.
VII. Appendix: AIA Task Force Report
I. INTRODUCTION
In September 1966, when it became apparent that the 89th
Congress would not appropriate funds for the proposed extension of
the West Front, AIA President Charles Nes appointed a five-member
Task Force of outstanding and highly respected architects to re-
study the condition of the West Front and the Institute's position
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
with regard to the Capitol extension. Those selected to serve on
the Task Force were: Samuel E. Homsey FAIA of Wilmington, Delaware;
Francis D. Lethbridge FAIA and John W. Stenhouse AIA, both of
Washington, D. C.; Louis Rossetti FAIA of Detroit, Michigan; and
Norman Fletcher FAIA of Boston, Massachusetts.
The Task Force was instructed to study the engineering re-
ports and the extension plans, meet with and review the arguments
of the architects for the project, and inspect the Capitol from
attic to basement.
The Task Force was to be completely objective in making
this study and was to arrive at its own recommendations, without
regard to any statements previously made by the Institute. Indeed,
in a letter inviting Norman Fletcher FAIA, to become a Task Force
member, Charles Nes wrote:
"If this committee finds that restoration is im-
practical or too expensive or that in the opinion
of the TAsk Force the proposed plans have vali-
dity, I think we are big enough to change our
position. I hope, therefore, you will agree to
serve on this committee."
On November 16 and 17 the Task Force met in Washington,
having previously studied the Thompson and Lichtner engineering
report and related material, individually. Task Force members
visited the Capitol on November 16, where they heard the project
- 2 -
analyzed by the architects for the extension project, and were
taken on a tour of the Capitol building. On the following day they
continued their study of the facts. Throughout its review, the
Task Force was advised by a prominent and experienced structural
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
engineer. Their report to the AIA Board of Directors is included
herewith as an Appendix.
The Institute believes that Capitol Hill is the single
most important land development in our Nation. We also believe
that history will hold the architectural profession accountable for
development of the Capitol and of Capitol Hill. Therefore, in the
findings and recommendations of the American Institute of Architects
which follow, we have attempted to be objective and constructive.
II. CONDITIONS OF THE WEST FRONT
The West Front of the Capitol is in a state of disrepair. Numerous
cracks are in evidence on the exterior of the building. Some win-
dow lintels and keystones have cracked and slipped. Several of the
architrave stones have sagged. The foundations, at some points,
are not far enough below the finish grade to escape frost damage.
However, none of the defects appears to indicate that danger of
collapse is imminent or that correction is impracticable.
Sandstone
There is some professional opinion that the sandstone fac--
ing used on the West Front was inferior to begin with and its dete-
rioration when exposed to the weather was predictable. Though this
stone is obviously inferior to some other stones for exterior use,
the same can be said of marble. In the Old Patent Office, for ex--
ample, there is no serious deterioration of the sandstone facing
of the first wing. Yet the adjoining wings of marble are badly
deteriorated. The example is pertinent since the facing for the
- 3 -
Capitol's West Front and the Old Patent Office building come from
the same sandstone quarry. This suggests that the condition of
the sandstone on the West Front may be partly due to causes other
than the quality of the stone.
Cracks
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Several of the architrave stones of the portico are defi-
nitely sagging and have been shored. Some window lintels and key-
stones have both cracked and slipped. The foundations, although
below the finish grade, are subject to frost damage at several
points. The basement wall of the center part of the SW corner in
the court has also been shored. When the grade was lowered in this
court the foundations thus exposed were veneered and it is this un-
bonded stone covering that has come loose from its back-up and re---
quired shoring. No cracks are in evidence on the interior but this
is explained by the fact that constant repairs have kept pace with
the cracks. The explanation given by the Assistant Architect of
the Capitol that visible exterior cracks are due to settlement and
expansion of the wall appears reasonable. However, no visible
effort has been made recently to fill these cracks in order at
least to deter the penetration of moisture. Had this been done as
the cracks appeared it is likely that the disgraceful appearance of
the exterior surface due to scaling paint could have been avoided.
Vertical Settlement - Lateral Thrust
There is no direct evidence that lateral thrust in the pre-
sent West Front has caused problems. The Capitol Architect's staff
engineer reports that the building is not out of plumb. Thus while
- 4 -
the Capitol is experiencing some vertical settlement it is not
slipping down the hill.
In short, none of the above mentioned defects appears to
indicate that danger of collapse is imminent or that correction is
not practicable. Furthermore, since lateral thrust is not pre-
senting major structural problems, doubt is cast on the need for a
buttress, although this is one of the arguments made by those who
favor an extension.
III. SPACE REQUIREMENTS
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
The recommendation to extend the West Front of the Capitol, to
provide Members of Congress and visitors with additional space and
facilities, was made without first conducting an adequate survey
to illustrate the use of present space and the need for additional
space, according to recent testimony by a Member of Congress. If
modern facilities and office space are critical necessities, should
a 19th century building be reshaped to meet 20th century needs?
Space Survey
One argument made by those who recommend a 4.5 acre exten-
sion to the Capitol is that such an extension will provide much
needed office space and added facilities for visitors. But, accord-
ing to recent testimony by a Member of Congress, no accurate sur-
vey has been conducted to predict Capitol space needs.
Apparently, the only space survey which has been made was
done in 1957 when various occupants were asked: "What additional
space do you anticipate needing within the next 25 years?" The
findings, based upon the wishes of selected occupants, was that
"139,000 additional square feet of useable space are needed to ful-
fill the needs of the Capitol for the present and for 25 years in
- 5 -
the future." Subsequent events have proved the 1957 survey unreli-
able. This is emphasized by the fact that over 200,000 square feet
would be added by the combined East and West Front extensions --
61,000 more square feet of space than the Capitol Architect's sur-
vey found would be necessary to satisfy Congress' needs in the
Capitol building until 1982.
A survey of Capitol space needs should also be made to de-
termine what functions are now being carried on in the building
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
which could be accomplished elsewhere just as effectively. It is
quite possible that some of the functions now housed in the Capitol
building could be moved to other new or existing buildings with no
loss of efficiency.
If a space survey had been made and the need for more gen-
erous accommodations clearly documented, the Congress would then
be faced with the question: Can present facilities be remodeled
or must new space be constructed? Certainly, if one is to provide
the most up-to-date and advanced, flexible, functional and hand-
some space, one would not normally start with the restricting en-
velope of a building conceived a century-and-a-half ago.
That a survey of immediate and long-term space needs is a
valuable and recognized first step in planning any new construction
has been consistently recognized by both Congress and the Executive
Branch. For example, in 1961 the President directed that a survey
of Federal office space be made to eliminate disorderly, inefficient
and wasteful utilization of space. The report of the President's
Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space has been the bench mark
for constructing new Federal facilities since that time.
- 6 -
The Functions of the Capitol
Floor consideration of legislation and the work closely
related thereto are the principal activities which must be carried
on in the Capitol. We question whether it is necessary or prudent
to try to accommodate in the Capitol constantly growing activities
not directly related to the work of Senate and House Chambers.
There is obviously a limit to the amount of space which
can be added to the Capitol if it is to retain any resemblance to
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
its original form-or even to the present building. Congress will
presumably decide at some point not to make any more additions to
the Capitol. We believe the Congress should make that decision now
while the one remaining original wall can be saved as visible evi-
dence of our heritage.
IV. RESTORATION: AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK?
The West Front of the Capitol can be restored and its structural
weaknesses corrected. Admittedly, it will be a job requiring
skill and patience. But if the decision to restore the Capitol is
made. our building technology is certainly adequate to meet the
challenge. Restoration would be, however, a costly undertaking
and would entail some inconvenience.
Restoration Techniques
The walls and foundations of the West Front of the Capitol
are structurally inferior when tested by today's standards. How-
ever, retention and repair of the existing walls is not infeasible.
No authority, including the Architect of the Capitol, contends that
restoration is impossible. It would, of course, be a delicate and
time consuming proposition. But our technology is up to the task.
- 7 -
Restoration work done on historic buildings in Europe in-
dicates that walls and columns which have deteriorated have been
reinforced effectively by a system of drilling diagonal holes
through the masonry, inserting reinforcing rods, and forcing grout
under pressure into the holes. Another successful technique
called "needling" involves the use of temporary steel beams to take
the load off parts of the wall while other areas of the wall are
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
being repaired. Similar or even more innovative methods could be
applied to the West Front.
Inconvenience
If restoration is undertaken, Congressional leaders with
offices located on the West Front would have to move and this cer-
tainly would be an inconvenience. But this inconvenience would
occur even if the West Front were extended.
Cost
No estimate has been made by the Capitol Architect to de-
termine the cost of restoring the West Wall in its present location
on the grounds that restoration was not the best solution and there
were too many unknowns to arrive at a reasonable estimate. The
American Institute of Architects does not know what the cost of
restoration would be. However, it is unlikely that the cost of
restoration would approach the total cost of extension. Further-
more, since no recent survey has been made to determine the space
needs of Congress and no master plan has been developed for the
Capitol Hill area, it is our opinion that extension of the West
Front may prove much more costly, due to misdirected effort, than
the immediate value of dollars spent on the extension project.
- 8 -
V. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING ON CAPITOL HILL
We move from crisis to crisis under present procedures for approval
and construction of Capitol Hill buildings. Unlike other parts of
the Capitol City, neither the Fine Arts Commission nor the National
Capitol Planning Commission has authority over Capitol Hill archi-
tecture and development. A Congressional inquiry in 1965 brought
out the fact that there had been no planning for Hill development
during the past eight years. And today, no long-range master plan
exists to guide development of Capitol grounds and contiguous areas.
Master Planning
Construction on Capitol Hill seems inextricably steeped in
controversy. Much of the blame for this situation can be attributed
to Congress which, apparently through indifference, has allowed
procedures to develop which are not in the best interest of the
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
Capitol Hill area.
For example, most universities, towns and cities of con-
sequence have recognized the benefit of a master plan. And Congress
has insisted that comprehensive master planning be accomplished
before Federal funds are granted for interstate highways, model
cities and other development programs. Yet no such plan exists
for Capitol Hill.
"Why," one Congressman recently asked "should this 131 acres
known as Capitol Hill be excluded and denied the benefits of com-
prehensive master planning which Congress in its wisdom felt was an
indispensable condition to their spending a dime of Federal funds
to help any city?" Why indeed!
Congress owes it to the people of the United States to have
orderly plan for the development of the Capitol grounds and conti-
guous areas. The cost of creating an excellent plan would be far
less than the amount which will be spent unnecessarily without one.
- 9 -
A Commission on Architecture and Planning
The 89th Congress considered legislation to establish a
Commission on Architecture and Planning. The Commission, to be
composed of highly experienced professionals, would
supervise the implementation of a master plan and would pass on
the design of buildings on Capitol Hill. We believe the legislation
has a great deal of merit. Accordingly, we strongly urge that the
many members who introduced the legislation in the 89th Congress
reintroduce the Commission on Architecture and Planning bill and
press for its enactment.
Congress called for the establishment of a Fine Arts Com-
mission and National Capitol Planning Commission to assure the
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
orderly and artistic development of the Capitol City. The Capitol
grounds are a part of the city and should no longer be excluded
from the accepted process of examination and review. Indeed,
Capitol Hill is so important as to merit its own review body.
VI. CONCLUSION: RESTORE THE WEST FRONT
The American Institute of Architects recommends that the West Front
of the Capitol be restored and that Congress establish a permanent
policy prohibiting any further major alteration to the Capitol
other than that absolutely necessary for structural and safety
reasons.
No evidence has been produced that would make impracticable
the restoration of the West Wall in its present form. The encrus-
tations of paint should be taken off and only those parts of the
original facade that are dangerously damaged or deteriorated should
be removed to be replaced with the same material as that of the
- 10 -
original walls. The more aged, eroded condition of the stone of
the West Front should be considered honorable evidence of its sur-
vival as one of the earliest of our major public buildings. It is
a condition that does not detract from the beauty of the building
when viewed from a distance, and it is one which adds considerably
to its interest and historic significance when examined close-at-
hand.
The American Institute of Architects believes it would be
a mistake to cover up the last remaining exterior portion of the
original Capitol. We strongly urge that the greatest symbol of
our country be preserved.
le harles In has Jr
FORD LIBRARY & DERALD
Charles M. Nes, Jr. FAIA
President
The American Institute of Architects
March 24, 1967
VII. APPENDIX: AIA TASK FORCE REPORT
March 24, 1967
STATEMENT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AIA TASK FORCE ON THE WEST
FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
The members of the AIA Task Force on the West Front of the U. S.
Capitol met in Washington November 16th and 17th, 1966. They
were Messrs. F. D. Lethbridge, Norman Fletcher, J. Stenhouse,
L. Rossetti, architects; C. Hansen, engineer; Samuel E. Homsey,
Chairman; T. R. Hollenbach and P. Hutchinson, AIA Staff.
The Task Force met in the morning of November 16, having pre-
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
viously studied the engineering reports individually. Carl
Hansen, prominent structural engineer, discussed the reports
and helped analyze the various structural problems. The after-
noon of November 16th was spent at the Capitol building with
Mr. Campioli, the Assistant Architect of the Capitol, and the
associated architects for the extension of the Capitol pro-
ject, together with certain of their engineers.
The presentation of the engineering reports by the associated
architects for the extension is based largely on the theory of
lateral bracing against lateral thrust of the brick arches,
although there was no direct evidence that lateral thrust in
the present west front was causing problems. There was evi-
dence to show that cracks were due to vertical settlement.
AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Page Two
Even if the present facade is covered by an extension, it
would appear that new underpinning of the present foundations
will be necessary.
Several of the architrave stones of the portico by inspection
indicated a definite sag and were shored up. Some window
lintels and keystones had both cracked and slipped. The founda-
tions at some points were reported to be well below the finish
grade and at others unacceptably close. The basement wall of
the center part at the SW corner in the court had also been
shored. It was explained that when the grade was lowered in
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
this court the foundations thus exposed were veneered and it
was this unbonded stone covering that had come loose from its
back-up and required shoring. No cracks were in evidence on
the interior, but this was explained by the fact that con-
stant repairs kept pace with their occurrence. The explanation
that visible exterior cracks were due to movement of the wall
by settlement and expansion appeared reasonable: however, no
visible effort had been made recently to fill these cracks in
approved fashion in order to at least deter the penetration of
moisture. Had this been done, it is possible that the disgrace-
ful appearance of the exterior surface due to scaling paint
might have been ameliorated.
After a study of drawings of building sections and on-site obser-
vations, none of the defects appear to indicate that danger
AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Page Three
of collapse is imminent or that correction is not practicable
though it might be time consuming and relatively expensive.
It would seem however, improbable that the cost of preserva-
tion would approach the total cost of extension. Some more
research could be done by the AIA on the probable range of cost
for the restoration. This could be done by getting opinions
from contractors in this country, experienced European con-
tractors who have been dealing with this kind of construction -
for example, Fondedile S.P.A. in Rome. Techniques used in
Europe for restoring facades include one called "needling," in
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
which steel beams are placed through the wall at intervals
for scaffolding, while certain portions of the building are
worked on. There is also a possibility of using temporary tie
rod techniques on the inside to hold the wall in place while
the outside surface is worked on. Restoration work done on
historic buildings in Europe indicates that walls and columns
have been reinforced effectively by a system of drilling dia-
gonal holes, inserting reinforcing rods and forcing in grout
under pressure. This method seems very promising as one of a
number of techniques which can almost certainly be used to
preserve the West Front with no major change in its appearance.
Foundation underpinning is well within the range of familiar
techniques in this country.
The inconvenience factor has been strongly developed by the
associated architects. If the extension is built, the
AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Page four
Congressional leaders using the offices on the west side will
be inconvenienced at least part of the time as the building is
joined on through construction, and all of the time because of
lack of natural light. It is true that if a project for pre-
servation of the present west front is carried forward, then
the Congressional leaders in that area would have to move else-
where during that time, and this certainly would be an in-
convenience. However, if extra space, such as is now proposed
by an extension, is an absolute necessity, separate quarters
could be planned as a Phase I development of a total program,
and they could move into the new quarters after it was finished
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
occasioning no inconvenience except for moving. In this
version, Phase II would be restoring the west facade after
additional space was built. In all parts of the world we see
scaffolds and other protective measures used for preservation
of historic monuments; they are there for years at a time.
They are worth the effort and patience. They remind us of the
dimension of time. We cannot go back and rebuild the past.
At a hearing before the Commission for Extension of the U. S.
Capitol in 1965 some opinion was expressed that the sandstone
facing used was quite inferior for use when exposed to the
weather and unless painted would go to pieces. Though this
stone is obviously inferior to some other stones for exterior
use, so is marble. The difference is relative. The same
quarry from which came the facing for the Capitol furnished
AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Page five
the facing for the first wing of the old Patent Office. There
is no serious deterioration of that surface, however, the ad-
joining wings of marble are badly deteriorated. There is good
reason to feel that inferior construction methods - pene-
tration of the weather to the inner core of the exterior walls
and sealing of the surface with paint - contributed considerably
more to deterioration than the facing material itself.
The Task Force supports a program of preservation in the purest
sense of the word. First of all, every bit of exterior paint
should be carefully removed and the original stone exposed.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Only those stones that are structurally unsound should be
replaced and these stones should be replaced with the same
material as that of the original walls.
It is not felt that a restoration of the West Front for "cosme-
tic" reasons is either necessary or desirable. The more aged,
eroded condition of the stones of the West Front should be
considered honorable evidence of its survival as one of the
earliest of our major public buildings. It is a condition
that does not detract from the beauty of the building when
viewed from a distance, and is one that adds considerably to
its interest and historic significance when examined close at
hand. After removal of the existing layers of paint and re-
placement of damaged stones, it will then be possible to deter-
mine whether the wall should remain exposed or should for
AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Page six
aesthetic or protective reasons receive a coating that will not en-
trap moisture as before, i. e. will allow the stone to breathe.
It has been stated in support of an extension that no restora-
tion of the existing building would be permanent. Very little
is permanent, not even the proposed extension. Constant main-
tenance is the only safeguard against failure of any construc-
tion - just as constant vigilance is essential to the preserva-
tion of our form of government.
Were the primary objective one of preservation rather than addi
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
tional space, our technology, wealth, and will would be ade-
quate to meet the challenge.
If the extension is carried out, the work of important early
American architects and landscape architects would be lost
forever - namely, Thornton, Latrobe, Bulfinch, and Olmstead.
The work of these significant American architects would seem
important to keep in a world in which we are losing many of
our original resources in buildings and nature. It seems all
the more essential to hold on to this last remaining, impor-
tant symbol embodied in our Capitol. Should we not follow the
example of such attempts at restoration as the Adler-Sullivan
Auditorium Building in Chicago and the effort given to restor-
ing New York City Hall recently? Certainly now is the time
when Americans are becoming conscious of their heritage in
building and in nature.
AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Page seven
Now is the time when Americans may be developing the self-con-
fidence to solve their functional problems in an aggressive,
growing, and modern appreach, still keeping their historic monu-
ments inviolate. These people have a right to be heard. The
landmark under discussion is number one on the list - the
Capitol of the United States. If this landmark is not worth
the effort to save - what is?
The whole problem of the extension points to the necessity
for master planning on Capitol Hill. In this connection, it
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
would seem an underground development for the east plaza
side of the Capitol should be explored for the possible use of
multi-level parking and visitor's facilities. The whole idea
for visitors' facilities incorporating cafeteria, specialized
auditoria with advanced audio-visual techniques, the
use of free and flexible areas and orientation would be part
of the overall program. Certainly this type of new 20th cen-
tury facility can best be solved in structures and materials
less inhibited by the classic framework. The matter of addi-
tional office space may be subject to some debate as to its
critical necessity, but if one is to provide the most up-to-date
and advanced, flexible, functional, handsome office space, one
would not start with the restricting envelope of a building
conceived a century and a half ago. The one advantage of
proximity of offices to legislative chambers could be an-
swered by well-designed motorized connections.
AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Page eight
The Task Force recommends preservation, but would put a
strong plea for a master plan, providing for office space, visi-
tors' facilities and parking, all with possibilities for ex-
pansion. It would seem then that the AIA's position, if the
Board follows the recommendation of the Task Force, would be
very much in concert with the President's program for natural
beauty, which would include preservation, and also that of the
many governors' councils on the same subject. We are already
identified with this movement and are not alone in defending
this position. Moreover, there are hundreds of thousands, per-
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
haps millions, of people who are shocked at the prospect of
extending the west front of the Capitol and who would support
preservation. The fact that the east front has been more or
less successfully added to should argue more strongly for the
preservation of the west front as the only remaining historic
facade of the Capitol.
President Johnson has said:
"Among the most cherished of a nation's treasures are the monu-
ments of its past. Each contributes to the historic texture of
society. We look back with reverence to lasting reminders of a
vital past. We look forward with confidence to achievements
which will enhance our future with accomplishments to match our
monumental past. In every part of the country citizens are
AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Page nine
rallying to save landmarks of beauty and history. The Govern-
ment must also do its share to assist the local efforts."
*****
Samuel E. Homsey, FAIA, Chairman
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
2003 Scott Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19806
Francis D. Lethbridge, FAIA
1300 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
John W. Stenhouse, AIA
1710 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Louis Rossetti, FAIA
Marquette Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Norman C. Fletcher, FAIA
36 Moon Hill Road
Lexington, Massachusetts 02173
GERALD
& FORD LIBRARY
1