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
143605644
label
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
143605644
contentType
document
title
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (3)
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
143605644
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
f5e4aca0dea1e1e0
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box J30, folder "West Front Extension: General,
1965-1973 (3)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
[Special]
"West Front"
(CAMIOLI, Mario E.)
re: emergency work
December 30, 1969
Mr. Mario E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
CORPLIBRARY is LIBRARY CERALD
Dear Mr. Campioli,
I have your letter of December 19 and am pleased to say that I, too,
approve of your proceeding with the emergency work as outlined in
your letter.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
GRF:mr
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
2320
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
December 19, 1969
F/OR:,T
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives
Member, Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol
United States Capitol
Washington, D. C.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Congressman:
The Congress recently provided funds in the Legislative Branch
Appropriation Act, 1970, for emergency repairs of the temporary shoring,
and providing for other protective and related work on the west central
front of the Capitol, pending a final decision on the extension or
restoration of that portion of the building.
The funds are appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol, for
expenditure under the direction of the Commission.
The work involved is summarized as follows:
1. Provide protective screen for balustrade
$16,000
2. Repair, rewedge, provide weepers, and paint
buttresses; reinforce and paint other
supports and timbers; paint housing over
stairs; reseal coping joints; seal cracked
water table; and repair displaced cramps
7,000
3. Provide one further set (March, 1970) of
survey readings (showing movement and/or
settlement of walls) and analysis
3,500
Total estimated cost
$26,500
We would like to proceed immediately with purchase of the
supplies and materials for items 1 and 2 and commence this emergency
work "in house" around the first of next year. We would like also to
let the contract with the surveyors and consulting engineer for item 3
so this work may proceed on a timely basis.
Honorable Gerald Ford
- 2 -
December 19, 1969
Speaker McCormack, Chairman of the Commission, has approved
proceeding with this emergency work as outlined and has asked that
we also seek your approval.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Domo &
Mario E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol
December 19, 1969
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives
Member, Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol
United States Capitol
Washington, D. C.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Dear Congressman:
The Congress recently provided funds in the Legislative Branch
Appropriation Act, 1970, for emergency repairs of the temporary shoring,
and providing for other protective and related work on the west central
front of the Capitol, pending a final decision on the extension or
restoration of that portion of the building.
The funds are appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol, for
expenditure under the direction of the Commission.
The work involved is summarized as follows:
1. Provide protective screen for balustrade
.......
$16,000
2. Repair, rewedge, provide weepers, and paint
buttresses; reinforce and paint other
supports and timbers; paint housing over
stairs; reseal coping joints; seal cracked
water table; and repair displaced cramps
.......
7,000
3. Provide one further set (March, 1970) of
survey readings (showing movement and/or
settlement of walls) and analysis
3,500
Total estimated cost
$26,500
We would like to proceed immediately with purchase of the
supplies and materials for items 1 and 2 and commence this emergency
work "in house" around the first of next year. We would like also to
let the contract with the surveyors and consulting engineer for item 3
so this work may proceed on a timely basis.
Honorable Gerald Ford
- 2 -
December 19, 1969
Speaker McCormack, Chairman of the Commission, has approved
proceeding with this emergency work as outlined and has asked that
we also seek your approval.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
FORD LIBRARY if GERALD
Mario E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol
[Special]
"West Front"
(MCCORMACK, John M.)
re: consultants'
December 30, 1969
Honorable John M. McCormack
Speaker
U. S. House offRepresetatives
Washington, D.C.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
Dear Mr. Speaker,
I have your letter of December 16 and want to say that I concur
wholeheartedly in your proposal that you should direct on behalf
of the Commission for Extension of the United States Captiol a
request of the American Society of Civil Engineers to review the
Conference Report and to suggest to the Commission the names of
several well qualified engineers or engineering firms.
I understand that Congressman Yates has suggested that similar
requests be made to the deans of some of the largest architectural
schools in the country. I would say that if in your judgment you
want to extend the request to these deans, I would also concur.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
GRF:mr
John m. McCormack
Engene T. Rinnaly
9th Dist.,Massachusette
Administrative Assistant
Martin Sweig
The Speaker's Rooms
Vegislative Assistant and
Secretary, Washington Office
U.S. House of Representatives
Boston Office:
Washington, D.C.
James V. Bartrey
Secretary
December 16, 1969
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
U. S. House of Representatives
ague gluthment
Washington, D. C.
concur
GERALD FORD CIBRARY
down is
Dear Mr. Ford:
This letter is being directed to you in your capacity as
a Member of the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol.
As you are aware, with respect to measures to be taken to
remedy the conditions of the West Front of the Capitol, the House and
Senate conferees on the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1970,
recommended a total appropriation of $2,275,000 under the appropria-
tion "Extension of the Capitol". This amount was agreed to by the
Senate and the House and the bill was signed by the President December
12, 1969.
Of this total amount, not to exceed $250,000 was provided
for a feasibility study of restoration. The conference report, in
this connection, provides in part:
"That not to exceed $250,000 shall be used for the
employment of independent nongovernmental engineering
and other services for studying and reporting (within
6 months after date of the employment contract) on the
feasibility and cost of restoring the west central front,
under such terms and conditions as the Commission may
determine."
The conference report also provides:
"In recommending the language to be offered in the
motion, the conferees of both Houses are agreed that
the nongovernmental engineering and other necessary
services engaged by direction of the Commission to
study and report on the feasibility and cost of
restoration should be, in the Commission's opinion,
completely independent, with no previous connection
with proposals to either extend or to restore the west
John M. McCormack
Engene T. Kimnaly
9th Bist.,Massachusette
Administrative Assistant
Martin Sweig
The Speaker's Rooms
Tegislative Assistant and
Secretary, Washington Office
H. House of Representatives
Boston Office:
Washington, D.C.
James V. Bartrey
Secretary
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
-2-
December 16, 1969
FORD
&
GERALD
LIBRARY
central front, including any expressed predisposition
for or against the extension or the restoration of the
west central front. The conferees are especially
anxious that the selection be made from among highly
reputable firms or individuals generally noted or re-
garded for their excellence of ability, to the end
that all Members may have confidence that whatever
report is submitted is qualitative and impartial in
character and content."
In line with the agreement reached, it is the responsibility
of the Commission to direct the employment of the necessary independent
non-governmental engineering services to make the study and prepare the
report on the feasibility and cost of restoration, keeping in mind the
desire of Congress, as expressed in the conference report, that the study
be completely independent, the firm or individual selected to have no
previous connection with proposals to either extend or to restore the
west central front or having expressed any predisposition for or against
the extension or the restoration. In view of the foregoing, it is my
thought that I should direct, on behalf of the Commission, a request to
the American Society of Civil Engineers, with headquarters in New York
City, to review the conference report and then suggest to the Commission
the names of several well qualified engineers or engineering firms, with
experience in restoration or reconstruction of old buildings such as the
Capitol. Assuming this society cooperates with us in preparing this list,
we could then meet early next year and develop the criteria for a contract
and select one of the firms or individuals to carry forward the work which
the Congress has ordered.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the American Society
of Civil Engineers has taken no position either for or against extension
or restoration. We could assume, therefore, that they would make an
independent judgment on this proposition in the spirit of the conference
agreement.
John W. McCormack
Engene T. Kimaly
Administrative Assistant
9th Dist.,Massachnartte
Martin Sweig
The Speaker's Rooms
Tegiolative Assistant and
Secretary,Washington Office
U.S. H. House of Representatives
Boston Office:
James V. Hartrey
Washington, D.C.
Secretary
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
-3-
December 16, 1969
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
In the interest of expediting this matter, I respectfully
request your concurrence in proceeding accordingly.
A copy of the conference report containing the full text
of the agreement on this matter is enclosed for your convenience.
With kind regards, I am
Encl.
91ST CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
1st Session
No. 91-727
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, 1970
DECEMBER 9, 1969.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 13763]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 13763)
making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes, having met, after full
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments
of the Senate numbered 36, 38, 42, 43, 44, and 45, and agree to the
same.
Amendment numbered 35:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 35, and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $468,165;
and the Senate agree to the same.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
37-006
2
The committee of conference report in disagreement amendments
numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40,
and 41.
GEORGE ANDREWS,
ToM STEED,
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN,
HOUSE
SIDNEY R. YATES,
BoB CASEY,
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
GEORGE MAHON,
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate
MARK ANDREWS,
to the bill (H.R. 13763) making appropriations for the legislative
ODIN LANGEN,
branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes,
LOUIS C. WYMAN,
submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action
FRANK T. Bow,
agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference report
Managers on the Part of the House.
as to each of such amendments, namely:
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA,
SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WILLIAM PROXMIRE (except
amendment No. 37),
Amendments Nos. 1 through 34, under the "Senate" heading, and
RALPH W. YARBOROUGH,
Nos. 39, 40, and 41, under the "Architect of the Capitol" heading,
JAMES B. PEARSON,
relate solely to expenses of Senate operations and activities.
NORRIS COTTON,
Amendments Nos. 36 and 38, under the "Architect of the Capitol"
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
heading, deal with Senate matters.
Amendment No. 37 relates to the west front of the Capitol.
Amendments Nos. 1 through 34, and Nos. 39, 40, and 41, relating
to Senate operations, are reported in technical disagreement. But in
accord with the long practice, under which each body determines its
own housekeeping requirements and the other concurs therein without
intervention, the managers on the part of the House will offer motions
to recede and concur in these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 38, under the "Architect of the Capitol"
heading, relate to appropriations that are joint in nature, but the
amounts in conference relate to Senate operations and thus fall in the
same category as the above bloc of amendments. The House recedes
and concurs in amendments Nos. 36 and 38.
JOINT ITEMS
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Amendment No. 35 adds $27,000 to the amount in the House bill,
instead of $35,000 proposed by the Senate.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WEST CENTRAL FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
Amendment No. 37, relating to the west central front of the U.S.
Capitol Building, is reported in technical disagreement. The managers
on the part of the House will offer a motion incorporating a conference
agreement in the nature of a substitute for the House provision and the
Senate provision.
(3)
H. Rept. 91-727
GERALD FORD LIBRAR,
H. Rept. 91-727
4
5
The House bill provided $2,000,000 for preparation of detailed plans
such restoration study report establishes to the satisfaction of the
and specifications for extending the west central front in accord with
Commission:
extension plan 2 approved by the Commission for Extension of the
(1) That through restoration, such west central front can,
U.S. Capitol. The Senate bill, by floor amendment, struck this pro-
without undue hazard to safety of the structure and persons
vision and substituted an appropriation of $250,000 to be transferred
be made safe, sound, durable, and beautiful for the foresee-
to the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior for use
able future;
in conducting studies to determine the feasibility and cost of restoring
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more
the west central front.
vacation of west central front space in the building proper
The case for extension rather than restoration was stated in some
(excluding the terrace structure) than would be required by
considerable detail in House committee hearings held September 8; in
the proposed extension plan 2;
House Report 91-487, of September 11, at pages 19-26; and in House
(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing restora-
floor debate of September 19. The case for restoration rather than exten-
tion can be so described or specified as to form the basis for
sion was stated variously in Senate committee hearings on the 1970
performance of the restoration work by competitive, lump-
appropriation bill, in the Senate committee report on the bill, but
sum, fixed price construction bid or bids;
especially in Senate floor debate of October 21 when the $2 million
(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed $15,000,-
extension funds were stricken and the $250 thousand inserted for a
000; and
restoration study.
(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the restora-
tion work will not exceed that heretofore projected for
THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT
accomplishing the plan 2 extension work.
G. In other words, if the restoration study report does not
The conference agreement to be put in the motion of the House
establish to the satisfaction of the Commission that restoration
managers will, as stated, be a substitute for both the House and
(rather than extension) treatment meets all five of the conditions
Senate provisions. It will provide-
noted above, then the extension work is to proceed.
A. An appropriation of $2,275,000.
H. If, on the other hand, the Commission, after consideration,
B. That the appropriation is to be expended under the direction
concludes that the restoration study report meets all five of the
of the Commission for Extension of the U.S. Capitol (now com-
conditions noted above, the Commission is then to make recom-
posed of the Speaker as chairman, the Vice President, the
mendations to the Congress on whether to extend or restore the
majority and minority floor leaders of the two Houses, and the
west central front.
Architect).
In recommending the language to be offered in the motion, the
C. That such portion of the appropriation as may be necessary
conferees of both Houses are agreed that the nongovernmental engi-
shall be used for emergency shoring and repairs and related
neering and other necessary services engaged by direction of the
work on the west central front. (The conferees were, very recently,
Commission to study and report on the feasibility and cost of restora-
apprised of the results of a periodic but continuing engineering
tion should be, in the Commission's opinion, completely independent,
check on the condition of the west front which discloses the need
with no previous connection with proposals to either extend or to
for some emergency protective and maintenance measures).
restore the west central front, including any expressed predisposition
D. That not to exceed $250,000 shall be used for the employ-
for or against the extension or the restoration of the west central front.
ment of independent nongovernmental engineering and other
The conferees are especially anxious that the selection be made from
services for studying and reporting (within 6 months after date
among highly reputable firms or individuals generally noted or re-
of the employment contract) on the feasibility and cost of restor-
garded for their excellence of ability, to the end that all Members may
ing the west central front, under such terms and conditions as the
have confidence that whatever report is submitted is qualitative and
Commission may determine.
impartial in character and content.
E. That pending completion and consideration of the restora-
tion study and report, however, no further work toward extension
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
of the west central front shall be carried on.
F. That after consideration by the Commission of the restora-
Amendments Nos. 42, 43, and 44, make reductions, as proposed by
tion study and report, the Commission is to direct the preparation
the Senate, in Library appropriations proposed in the House bill, as
of final plans for extending the west central front in accord with
follows:
extension plan 2 already approved by the Commission, unless
Library, salaries and expenses (No. 42)
-$23,500
aottom to по
Copyright Office, salaries and expenses (No. 43)
-4,000
inomeerge
Books for the blind and physically handicapped, salaries and expenses
(No. 44)
-3,000
H. Rept. 91-727
TeT-10
FORD j LIBRARY GERALD
H. Rept. 91-727
1
6
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
Amendment No. 45 reduces by $100,000, as proposed by the Senate,
the appropriation proposed in the House bill for the Office of Super-
intendent of Documents.
GEORGE ANDREWS,
ToM STEED,
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN,
SIDNEY R. YATES,
BoB CASEY,
GEORGE MAHON,
MARK ANDREWS,
ODIN LANGEN,
LOUIS C. WYMAN,
FRANK T. Bow,
Managers on the Part of the House.
TST-10
H. Rept. 91-727
Commusion m
November 6, 1969
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Member
Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol
Washington, D. C.
FORD is LIBRARY
Dear Congressman Ford:
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, acting under
authority of Public Law 89-173, as amended by 40 U.S.C. 672, has
prepared plans for construction of a rail rapid transit line, extending
from Glenmont, Maryland, via the Union Station, through the north end
of the Capitol Grounds to Judiciary Square, continuing on in loop
fashion to Rockville, Maryland. The plans, insofar as they affect the
Capitol Grounds, have been prepared in collaboration with the Architect
of the Capitol and his staff.
I am attaching, hereto, a statement explaining these plans, how
they affect the Capitol Grounds, and other related factual data.
The plans and construction program, as proposed by the Transit
Authority, meet with the approval of Mr. Stewart and myself. They now
require approval by the Commission for Extension of the United States
Capitol under the provisions of the Act authorizing the rail rapid
transit system, insofar as the plans relate to the portion of the
transit line to pass under the north end of the Capitol Grounds. The
Transit Authority has requested Mr. Stewart to take the necessary steps
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
- 2 -
November 6, 1969
to obtain the Commission's approval. Mr. Stewart, as Architect of the
Capitol and a Member of the Commission, has asked me to act in the
matter of securing the Commission's approval during his absence due to
illness.
Mr. Stewart and I both recommend that the approval requested by
the Transit Authority be granted by the Commission.
The Speaker has reviewed and approved the proposed plans and
programs, insofar as they affect the Capitol Grounds, and has requested
me to write to each Member of the Commission for Extension of the United
States Capitol and to request each Member's consideration and approval
of the Transit Authority's request, as recommended by the Architect of
the Capitol and approved by the Speaker as Chairman of the Commission.
This letter is being written accordingly.
If our recommendation meets with your approval, it is requested
that you indicate your approval by signing in the space below prepared
for such purpose and return this letter with your signature of approval
to me.
Sincerely yours,
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
Mario E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol
APPROVED
Member, Commission for Extension
signed
of the United States Capitol
11-7-64
SIDNEY R. YATES
Office Capef
COMMITTEE
9TH DISTRICT, ILLINOIS
APPROPRIATIONS
CHICAGO DISTRICT OFFICE
ROOM 2050
Congress of the United States
FEDERAL BUILDING
219 S. DEARBORN STREET
60604
house of Representatives
Clashington, D.C. 20515
October 6, 1969
Mr. John Vander Meiden, Jr.
Vander Meiden, Koteles & Associates, Inc.
1203 Beechtree Street
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Mr. Vander Meiden:
You were kind enough to send me a copy of your letter
to Congressman Ford. Inasmuch as I was one of the
members of the subcommittee which approved extension
of the West Front of the Capitol, I thought I should
reply to you.
First, respecting the AIA. I wanted to side with its
recommendation and support a restoration rather than
extension of the west front but the evidence was pre-
dominantly in favor of the extension. Recently I received
a letter from an AIA member who is a close friend which
enclosed a copy of the speech by Congressman Stratton of
New York supporting the AIA position. In his letter, he
wrote, "I wish you had made that speech." I replied: "It
was a good speech, and I could have made it if I were
willing to close my mind to the facts."
You say that you have read all the material furnished you
by Congressman Ford. You appreciate, then, that I consider
the Capitol to be one of the nation's most important
buildings, truly a part of our national heritage which must
be preserved for the generations. Members of my committee
have this view, and we considered it essential that the
best architectural talent in the country be retained to
deal with the problem of the deteriorating west wall. You
read in the hearings of the qualifications of the Assistant
Architect of the Capitol, Mario Campioli. Perhaps you
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Mr. John Vander Meiden, Jr.
-2-
October 6, 1969
know of architects with greater experience. I know of
none and none was suggested by the AIA Task Force. They
did not question Mr. Campioli's qualifications nor has any-
body else. Even conceding for the purpose of this discussion
that he was biased because he is on the staff of the Capitol
Architect (and I do not believe it), certainly his education
and experience as the architect in charge of the task of
restoring the Williamsburg buildings entitle him to some
recognition as an expert in the field. He was consulted
as an expert in connection with the restoration of the
White House. Knowing him, I believe in his ability and
integrity.
Nevertheless, as I pointed out in my statement, I have been
skeptical of the capabilities of the staff of the Capitol
Architect for years because of the Rayburn Building. I
join critics of the huge structure in condemning it as
dull, pedestrian, uninspired architecture, to say the least.
What a golden opportunity was missed for a noble expression
of America's architectural genius! And yet, in all fairness
to the Architect of the Capitol, I've come to believe the
building was designed in accordance with the conception of
Speaker Sam Rayburn, who was a great and good man but not
noted for his knowledge or vision in architectural design.
He had his own very strong ideas which he wanted reflected
in this building and they were. It is truly the Rayburn
Building.
But the Rayburn Building is not at issue here although, as
I said, it left its impression on my thinking. When the
initial hearing had been completed, therefore, I called
the office of the AIA and spoke to Mr. Hutchinson. I told
him I wanted to know in which man or firm the AIA had
confidence to make the study it advocated. Mr. Hutchinson
told me he would check and let me know. He called back later
that day to tell my secretary he had consulted with firms
all over the country and he had a list of six recommended
in order of preference. The name of Fred Severud of New
York City was ranked number one, his name having been
mentioned most frequently. .I decided to ask Mr. Severud's
opinion on what should be done.
Mr. John Vander Meiden, Jr.
-3-
October 6, 1969
When I called his office in New York City I was informed
he was away for two days. However, I reached him the next
day at his home in New Jersey and asked him point blank
whether the wall could be restored. I had read the previous
day the letter he had written to the Architect of the
Capitol on July 26, 1966, in which he had advocated the
extension and I reminded him of the letter. He asked
whether he might call me back the next day in order that
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
he might check his notes which were at his office. When
we spoke again the next day, he came out flatly against
the restoration for the reasons which were stated in the
telegram which appears on page H. 8200 of the Congressional
Record for September 19.
Mr. Severud has examined the west wall, he has been in
consultation with Dr. Clair who did the five volume survey
of the west wall. As he said in his telegram, as
consulting engineer if he did not agree to the recommenda-
tion, he would have said SO.
It is true that Mr. Severud has been retained as structural
engineer for the job by the Capitol Architect and some have
said he was speaking for his client in coming to his conclusion.
I prefer to think that Mr. Severud is a man of integrity
and that were restoration feasible or even a practical possi-
bility, he would have told me so. I think the Capitol
Architect is to be commended for having selected the structural
engineer who was rated so highly by many of the architects
of the country.
You say, "I believe the AIA would be better satisfied in
the west front extension if they were convinced that the
restoration was going to cost the amount predicted by the
proponents of the extension." There is no question that
building costs are sky-rocketing. Had we approved the
extension some years ago, we already would have saved 8 or 9
million dollars on the job. Moreover, we cautioned the
Architect that we want no "C5A's." I don't know whether you
noted that the AIA Task Force, as I interpreted their
position, favored the restoration no matter what the cost,
Mr. John Vander Meiden, Jr.
-4-
October 6, 1969
and that Mr. Lethbridge conceded that the costs of restora-
tion might be more than the costs of extension. I cannot
escape the conclusion that the ATA Task Force would have
refused under any circumstances to alter its position.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Certainly, the responsible architectural work on the
Capitol grounds is not controlled by an engineer as you
state. It is controlled by the Capitol Building Commission
of which Gerry Ford is a member. And it should be noted
that the AIA has not criticized the architects who were
retained by the Capitol Architect to design the extension,
and who, incidentally, were approved by the Building
Commission. I might have preferred the hiring of other
architects, but that is something about which you should
talk to Gerry if you don't think they should have been
chosen. Moreover, the ATA Task Force has stated that it
has no objection to the design or the esthetics of the
proposed extension.
As I said, I might have preferred other architects--
certainly I would have for the Rayburn Building and
possibly for other buildings that are in contemplation for
this area because my views on contemporary architecture
differ from many other members. Mies Van der Rohe was a
very good friend of mine and two of his former associates
designed my apartment and my furnishings. I like the work
of Gropius, Breuer, Saarinen, and the others who have made
such notable contributions. Bill Hartman, Walter Netsch,
Myron Goldsmith, Bruce Graham of the Skidmore firm are
all good friends of mine. But I must tell you in all
frankness that there are many members of Congress who do
not share my views and who talk freely and vociferously
about their dislike "for all the glass and steel" in so many
present buildings. If you are unhappy with the architecture
on Capitol Hill, Gerry is the one with whom you should talk
because he sits in a very prominent position to influence
the course of such architecture.
So there you have it. I'm sorry this letter is so long,
but I feel very keenly about this matter. I did worry
about the decision as did other members of my committee
Mr. John Vander Meiden, Jr.
-5-
October 6, 1969
because it was a very important one, and I'm sure that
Gerry did, too. We would not knowingly desecrate the
Capitol and believe sincerely the extension is the best
GERALD R.FORD TIBRARY
alternative.
As you will see in the Record, it was stated the fact
that we have approved the extension does not mean that we
have approved the interior places as well. I am opposed
to many of the Building Commission's proposals. I think
the interior could stand a more imaginative treatment and
I have already suggested as one possibility a Hall of
the States. If you have any suggestions, I would be
pleased to receive them. I am enclosing a copy of the
Preliminary Plans and Estimates of Cost for the proposed
extension which you may find interesting and useful.
Sincerely yours,
Sidney Member SIDNEY R of Ryate
Enclosures
CC: Hon. Gerald Ford
Hon. Tom Steed
Hon. Michael J. Kirwan
Hon. Bob Casey
Hon. Mark Andrews
Hon. Odin Langen
Hon. Ben Reifel
Hon. Louis C. Wyman
Mr. Mario Campioli
Mr. Walter A. Netsch
Mr. Philip Hutchinson, AIA
Mr. Fred Severud
SIDNEY R. YATES
COMMITTEE
9TH DISTRICT, ILLINOIS
APPROPRIATIONS
CHICAGO DISTRICT OFFICE
ROOM 2050
Congress of the United States
FEDERAL BUILDING
219 S. DEARBORN STREET
house of Representatives
60604
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 6, 1969
Mr. Phillip Hutchinson
The American Institute of Architects
GERALD LIBRARY R. FORD
The Octagon
1735 New York Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Hutchinson:
I have received several letters from architect friends
of mine who have forwarded to me copies of letters you
had sent to them urging their support for restoration
of the west wall of the Capitol.
I am enclosing a copy of the letter which I have sent
in reply. If it is not in accord with the facts in
any respect as you know them to be, I would appreciate
your so advising me.
Sincerely yours
Member SIDNEY of R. Ryates Congress YATES
SRY/jss
Enclosure
THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
August 6, 1969
Dear Mr. Stewart:
Thank you very much for your July 30
request for my approval of planning funds
to be requested for extending the West
Central Front of the Capitol.
I am happy to concur in the views
expressed by Minority Leaders Dirksen and
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Ford.
Sincerely,
Hiss 1 Eyes
Mr. J. George Stewart
Architect of the Capitol
The Capitol
Washington, D. C. 20515
EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN
MINORITY LEADER
ILLINOIS
a. MEC
CAN
United States Senate
August 1, 1969
The Honorable
J. George Stewart
Architect of the Capitol
Washington, D. C.
Dear George:
I examined your letter of July 30 and, likewise, the
brochure setting forth preliminary plans and cost
estimates on the west central front of the Capitol.
The situation is quite like I anticipated it would be
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
after a personal examination of the cracking of the
stone in the west front and I presume, since I looked,
it has become even more aggravated. I quite agree that
there is no time to be lost and we should push forward
with the plans and with an immediate request for plan-
ning funds.
Sincerely,
Everent
Everett McKinley Dirksen
2229 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
FRED SCHWENGEL
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
WORKS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
1ST DISTRICT, IOWA
202-225-6576
SUBCOMMITTEES:
FLOOD CONTROL
ROADS
DISTRICT OFFICE:
Congress of the United States
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUND
404 UNION ARCADE
WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT
DAVENPORT, IOWA 52801
APPALACHIA
319-324-3527
FORD & LIBRARI GERALD
House of Representatives
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ALLAN SCHIMMEL
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Washington, D. C.
SUBCOMMITTEES:
CHARLES CAMPBELL
LIBRARY AND MEMORIALS
LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT
Dear Colleague:
April' 28, 1969 SNal
ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL OFFICE
EQUIPMENT
N/A
As one who has had more than a casual interest in the U.S. Capitol
Building and also as one who originally opposed both the East and West
extensions, I feel it incumbant upon me to make known again why my posi-
tion and some of the reasons for my support on the proposed West Front
extension have changed.
The record will show I was against the East Front extension until I
researched the problems and solutions and I agonizingly came to the conclu-
sion that the decision to extend the East Front was a correct one.
The restoration and extension of the West Front seems to be a point of
serious debate. This is not surprising because history shows that in every
time when there were propositions to extend and improve the Capitol, it was
a subject of debate. This is natural because it is a place for debate.
There were always those who opposed and/or had other suggestions on changes
and improvements for the Capitol. But always after debate, fortunately, the
Congress did the right thing in granting authority and the necessary appro-
priations to make possible the necessary improvements.
After thorough study, personal inspection and evaluation of the pro-
posed extension, it is my feeling that we ought to proceed immediately with
the West Front.
The urgency of the restoration and extension is brought out impressively
in an article by Wilfred J. Gregson as published in the AMERICAN REGISTERED
ARCHITECT, recently. Since I have made evaluations of Mr. Gregson's capabili-
ties and competency, I have confidence in his insights, comments and suggest-
ions.
Enclosed please find, and I hope you will read, this very impressive and
descriptive article by a man whom I believe has no interest to serve but the
public interest.
I believe you will concur with me the now completed East Front serves us
well and is structurally well balanced. When you have read Mr. Gregson's
article, you may have further questions on materials relating to this. I'm
sure they can be answered by myself and/or by the Architect or the Engineer
in his office.
Sincerely yours,
And charged
FRED SCHWENGEL
Member of Congress
FS:11n
Hemper of COURIGRS
ASED SCHARMOKF
lonke'
TU use PETTOD
only TO 9/13 vd TO/bas Meeys vd berevene sd nso veda STUB
Доп usA person disectousion superrate CO T,
svad flow at bas Hey
BU won.eds no I/Iv NOV systine I
baptre superses*
DICTOTS pl. '' use afrom I реттеле per DO FO RELAS price rue
bns svisserqui ,boor Illw uoy eqod I bns ,but3 cassiq 1
.enot
-Jasggue broo etrammos ald nt considence sved I bire 8011
e'woager0 all to shan svad I sont? ,TOSTINGIA
PA CLESSEU 58 THE tye VREKICVN VECI21EKED
visvlessique birs add to edT
saew offit
date becouse 03 Jriguo SW Jodg suffest your al 31 ,доделозхо beeng
-org arts to notisulave bas notrosqent Importeq 1939A
edo aldlasoq solam 03 emotioning
-orgqs Vissassen site bas satimary nt satis tdats ads blb зазталод
sits ,esadeb retta evewis Jul Jodiqa0 and TO] bns
prode Mote chose дро obboseq sug/ox psq orper Oil, cpense
stadeb TOB essig B at 11 asussed Issuden el stat .stadab 10 sootdue a
cuere ASIG CO expend suq Imbrong tye CERTEOT' TF 098
THE TO DOE pecense presora apons Type TO GASLA
eng expension of cue Meer froup per 9 botus of
.smo CORRECT 8 ESV short Jeal edj brooks of notalosh add Inds note
add 03 BRED vigatstnoge I bre enolution bris and badaressar
I Ittm SHOUL Jash and Jenisgs eaw I vorle Бторат 967
begnado eved motensizo
10011 seall beoqoxq add no JIOQQUE VIII той another edita 10 enos bne nota
-teoq VIII Vilw alegs aword solum 03 my DOQU 11 lost I
Jeshi bne Jash add dsod besoqqo Wisnigiro ody 900 as osis bas
My va 006 Apo per pag WOSS cyse S S cuansy INCOLORE III cps 0'2' 2' Cabicoy
DESL Corrector:
VOLTI 38' raea
301750 ORIA
FIREVIA
VIID
MEMOVITE
DC C
CORNOLLES
on
Honey
to
asinies dating IN 30 aesigneD
Mario
COMICLITUE
VID
means
TOME
ристовляє
AMED SCHMEMCER
/ REGISTERED
SOCITY of ARCHITECTS
MCMLVI
AMERICAN
REGISTERED
FORD & LIBRARY OERALD
ARCHITECT
NES
The most famous building in the world - the United States Capitol.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Two years ago at a Congres-
Death in the
sional hearing on the West Front
of the Capitol, I called attention
to the number of dangerous con-
United States
ditions that existed in the Cap-
itol. The one that caused imme-
diate attention and action was
Capitol
the dangerously overloaded attic
floor. After the hearing a re-
porter from the Washington Post
asked if the attic overload was
by
as serious as I had testified. I
assured her it was. Here is the
Wilfred J. Gregson, FARA
story as it appeared and subse-
quently received national and in-
ternational coverage.
Capitol Attic is Overloaded
Washington Post News Service,
Washington, August 8, 1966
"An architect has told a House
8
ARA November, 1968
the Capitol is constructed with a
prevent so awful a tragedy.
series of arches. The West Front
When the West Central Front wall
restrains these arches with iron
bulges 4½" into the court, it is
ties anchored into the stonework.
obviously overstressed. Shoring
There is sufficient evidence to
it to prevent it from bulging fur-
show that these have slipped, re-
ther adds additional and unpre-
ducing their buttressing effect on
dictable stresses. The wall is com-
the arches behind the West Wall.
posed of an outside layer of lime-
Some of these arches, once semi-
stone with very poor, soft and
circular, are now flattened at the
crumbling lime mortar joints; the
top. They are composed of a
inside wall is built of the same
single course of brick or stone
material, but has not been sub-
and in many instances are filled
jected to the daily expansion and
with sand over the arch. At times
contraction action resulting from
this sand falls like rain through
the heat of the sun followed by
the brick joints. How long can
the cold of the night.
this go before one of the arches
Between the exterior and in-
collapses? When an arch collap.
terior walls of the Capitol, the
House side of west front wall
ses, it removes the restraint on
original builders had dumped
which bulged four and one-half
the adjacent arch. How much of
loose rubble rock without mortar.
inches-August, 1968.
the Capitol will collapse and how
This adds neither tie nor restraint,
Wilfred J. Gregson
Mario E. Campioli
many people will get killed when
but falls between the walls as the
this happens?
front wall bulges, increasing the
loading. In any case, the remain-
It is inconceivable that so seri-
stresses.
ing hazardous conditions were
ous a condition can be permitted
No building department in the
ignored. They still exist in a fur-
to exist and to get progressively
United States would approve the
subcommittee that the attic of the
the Capitol by extending and re-
another news service release by
ther state of deterioration and a
more hazardous with each pass-
Capitol today, even as it was ori-
Capitol building is so overloaded
building the West Front."
the Washington Post.
more hazardous condition than
ing day. There is no way to pro-
ginally constructed, and would
with old files that it could col-
The blast of publicity had its
Unfortunately, the other re-
was true two years ago.
ject the extent of this impending
condemn it in its present deteri-
lapse.
immediate effect. The files and
marks made at the hearing ap-
For example, August, 1966,
catastrophe. As architects, we can
orated and dangerous condition,
"A Sword of Damocles is
stacks of papers were removed
pear to have been overshadowed
when I appeared before the
only call attention to it and insist
barring the public from the build-
hanging over the building," Wil-
the following week according to
by the urgency of the attic over-
hearing there were two shores
that immediate action be taken to
ing.
fred J. Gregson of Atlanta de-
holding up the West Central Front
clared. "A national tragedy could
West side of old Senate wing. At left is the north end and at right
wall of the Capitol which had
occur."
is the south end.
bulged 4½" into the court. Three
Questioned later, Gregson,
A 17-inch piece of the cornice which fell from the west front.
more shores have since been
Founder of the Society of Amer-
added in an attempt to hold this
ican Registered Architects, said
wall from collapsing.
2
3
4
5
D
8
9
10
11
02
13
the attic was never meant for
14
15
16
17
18
Two years ago there were two
storage and should not be used
shores holding up the architrave;
for that purpose.
now there are five shores. Three
"There are stacks and stacks
additional shores have been
of paper and stacks between the
added because of the danger of
stacks," he said. "Boxes are piled
the architrave falling down.
two and three feet above the file
Hundreds of great fractures have
cabinets overloading the floors
appeared in lintels, sills, key-
and creating a fire hazard."
stones and walls which have now
The dangerous condition of the
been filled and painted. This
attic was confirmed by assistant
hides the deplorable condition of
Capitol architect, Mario E. Cam-
the building, but has not cor-
pioli.
rected it. In the meantime, the
"I am amazed," he said, "that
old sandstone portico has deteri-
the building continues to be able
orated so that large pieces of
to support the tremendous load.'
stone have fallen off the exterior
Gregson appeared before the
walls with a potential death deal-
special House labor subcomittee
ing threat. Fortunately, no one
in support of the proposal by
has yet been killed or hit by these
Capitol Architect J. George Stew-
falling fragments.
art to buttress the old walls of
As most architects are aware,
ARA November, 1968
9
10
ARA November, 1968
Why is it then that hundreds
spected architects of unquestion-
of legislators can exist in blissful
able renown was stalled by emo-
ignorance in a building that is
tional actions.
eminently dangerous and fast de-
Shall we, as architects, let it
teriorating? Why are they not
continue to be a windmill for un-
disturbed by the prospects of im-
informed tilting, or shall we take
mediate and awful death that
the action demanded of US by our
faces them?
profession?
Something must be done and
We are charged with the re-
immediately to avert the most
sponsibility of educating the pub-
awful tragedy that this country
lic. There is no better place to
has ever seen. It can be done by
start than the central building of
the united voice of architects who,
our Government. There is no bet-
as a group, are dedicated to see
ter time than now. We should
that all buildings are safe and
call to the attention of our legis-
free from hazardous conditions.
lators that a shock wave from
J. George Stewart, Architect of
dynamite or gas explosion in the
the Capitol, has the responsibility
vicinity of the Capitol, or earth
of maintaining the building in a
tremor, sonic boom or other of
safe condition, yet his recom-
the 20th century shocks to which
mendations and warnings have
buildings are subjected, could re-
been ignored. He knows, as does
sult in a collapse of a large part
his assistant Mario E. Campioli,
of the Capitol.
and every other engineer and ar-
There are now five shores under the Architrave. Picture was taken
House side of west front wall. Three shores were required to pre-
J. George Stewart and Mario
chitect who has studied the prob-
in August of this year.
vent wall collapsing. Same conditions prevail on the Senate side.
E. Campioli are continually refus-
lem, that the best way to protect
ing to grant requests of contrac-
the West Front of the Capitol is
tors to use dynamite near the
by enclosing it so that the exist-
chitects are John Harbeson, Phil-
wall by building in front of it a
design."
Many architects joined in support
Capitol. One day some ignorant
ing stone work maintains the
adelphia; Paul Thiry, Seattle,
structure with essentially the
The years of work and recom-
of the uninformed. At an archi-
contractor might fail to ask for
same temperature on both sides
Washington; and Gilmore D.
same architectural appearance.
mendations of the architects em-
tect's convention in Denver, Col-
permission. It could result in in-
and is no longer subjected to the
Clarke, New York. Their summa-
In no way was it planned to
ployed by the Government were
orado, they denounced their own
jury or death and burial in tons
deteriorating effects of daily ex-
tion and recommendations are:
change the style of architecture.
ignored as the ranks of misin-
members and their years of work.
of rubble of legislators and vis-
pansion and contraction and the
"It is inescapable that the West
The misunderstanding, which was
formed and uninformed swelled.
Paul Thiry complained bitterly
itors who might be in the build-
effects of winter freezings.
Central Front of the Capitol must
widespread, came about because
about the unethical treatment he
ing at the time.
Thompson and Lichtner, con-
be extended to preserve the ex-
one report mentioned modern
and his associates received from
The Society of American Regis-
sulting engineers, made the same
terior walls."
techniques of "design" when it
North end of old Senate wing.
his peers, who were in no way
tered Architects asks that each
recommendation in their 1964 re-
The same action was taken to
should have said of "structural
familiar with the project, yet
architect immediately write to his
port.
protect the East Front wall of the
rushed through a motion of con-
senator and congressman point-
"Retention of the wall as an
Capitol many years ago. In this
demnation in time to reach the
ing out the need for action with-
interior wall of an extended
way, the original East Front wall
press deadline. The sound, well-
out further delay of this most
building is recommended as the
This schematic illustrates the
has been protected for all times.
studied recommendations of re-
important of all projects.
least hazardous and as causing
cracks in the columns.
It has been preserved, and sig-
the least interference with the OC-
FORD
nificant features of it are seen by
cupancy of the present structure.
thousands of visitors who go to
Model of the west front extended.
A proyerly designed and con-
the U.S. Capitol every day. Surely
structed extension would also
there is nothing wrong with the
provide desirable lateral support
same treatment to protect the
for the West Central portion of
West Front?
the Capitol."
Why, then, the outburst of in-
The architects employed by the
dignation and opposing articles
Government under contract for
and editorials that suddenly ap-
the purpose of analyzing the com-
peared?
plex problems and recommend-
Check around and you will
ing a solution are:
find that the public was given the
Roscoe Dewitt, Dallas, Texas;
impression that a "modern" front
Alfred Easton Poor, New York
was being planned. It was mis-
City; Albert Swanke, New York
understood that all that was ne-
City; and Jesse M. Sheiton, At-
cessary and recommended was
North
Old
lanta, Georgia. The Advisory Ar-
to protect the existing West Front
12
ARA November, 1968
11
ARA November, 1968