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
143605648
label
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
143605648
contentType
document
title
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (6)
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
143605648
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
b5ac4844beb1107a
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box J30, folder "West Front Extension: General,
1965-1973 (6)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
ARCHITECT
OF
THE
THE CAPITOL
* 1793 *
Washington, D.C. 20515
November 2, 1971
file
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Member
Commission for Extension of the United
States Capitol
United States Capitol
Washington, D. C.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
Dear Congressman Ford:
At the request of Senator Hollings, Chairman of the Legislative
Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, I
appeared before his Subcommittee today to present an up-to-
date report on the West Central Front of the Capitol. A copy
of my prepared statement before the Subcommittee is enclosed
for your information.
I shall be pleased to expand it to whatever extent the Commis-
sion may deem either necessary or appropriate for its further
use.
Cordially,
George 1 Juye
Architect of the Capitol
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
REPORT ON WEST CENTRAL FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Chairman, I am presenting this report to you in my capacity as
Architect of the Capitol, without instructions from the Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol. The Commission has not yet
made any decision on the Engineering Report authorized by the Congress.
In the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1970,
(Public Law 91-145), the Congress simultaneously appropriated $2, 000, 000
for preparation of final contract drawings and specifications for carrying
out Plan 2 for extension of the West Central Front of the Capitol and
$250, 000 for engineering and other necessary services for studying and re-
porting on the feasibility and cost of restoring the front.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The law provided that pending the completion and consideration of the
restoration study and report, no further work toward extension was to be
undertaken.
The law also contained the following provisions which are pertinent to
our hearing today:
****That after submission of such study and report and
consideration thereof by the Commission, the Commis-
sion shall direct the preparation of final plans for ex-
tending such west central front in accord with Plan 2
(which said Commission has approved), unless such
restoration study report establishes to the satis-
faction of the Commission:
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 2
"(1) That through restoration, such west central
front can, without undue hazard to safety of the struc-
ture and persons, be made safe, sound, durable, and
beautiful for the foreseeable future;
"(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no
more vacation of west central front space in the building
proper (excluding the terrace structure) than would be
required by the proposed extension Plan 2;
"(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing
restoration can be so described or specified as to form
the basis for performance of the restoration work by
competitive, lumpsum, fixed price construction bid or
bids;
"(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed
$15, 000, 000; and
"(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the
restoration work will not exceed that heretofore pro-
jected for accomplishing the Plan 2 extension work:
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Provided further, That after consideration of the
restoration study report, if the Commission concludes
that all five of the conditions hereinbefore specified are
met, the Commission shall then make recommendations
to the Congress on the question of whether to extend or
restore the west central front of the Capitol."
Upon direction of the Commission for Extension of the United States
Capitol, after exhaustive study, the engineering contract for the
restoration study was awarded to Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Engineers-
Architects of New York City.
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 3
The Praeger report was received at the end of December, 1970, and
was forwarded immediately to all Members of the Commission and re-
leased to the press and others interested.
Early this year, as the newly appointed Architect of the Capitol,
and in anticipation that the Commission in Charge, before reaching a
conclusion on the matter, would seek my professional judgment in assist-
ing them to evaluate the Praeger report, I began a detailed professional
review of all available information relating to the history and develop-
ment of the West Central Front proposals. My efforts, of course, were
spurred on by your interest, Mr. Chairman, expressed when we last
appeared before you regarding the annual budget request.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Among the activities in which I engaged during the review are the
following:
1. A careful and diligent open-minded study of the Praeger report.
2. A physical examination of both the interior and the exterior of
the original west walls.
3. A careful review of testimony given over a period of many years
before various House and Senate Committees concerned with the proposals
for the extension of the West Front of the Capitol, and before the
Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol.
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 4
4. A reading and review of the record of the floor debates in both
the Senate and the House that led to the various actions of the Congress.
5. A review of the legislation, committee reports, and other docu-
ments on the subject.
6. Study of the Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth & Johnston engineering
report of 1957.
7. Study of the 1964 engineering report of The Thompson & Lichtner
Co., Inc.
8. A study of the various reports of the former Architect of the
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Capitol, as well as reports made to him by the Associate Architects for
the Extension Project.
9. Meetings and discussions of the various past studies, and of the
Praeger report, with the staff of the Architect of the Capitol.
10. Requested and received advice and counsel from the American
Institute of Architects which responded by appointing a new Task Force
to re-examine the AIA position. We engaged in several conferences and a
written report from the Task Force was received.
11. Asked three prominent general contractors, an officer and
members of the AGC, for their opinion with regard to estimates of cost
as outlined in the Praeger report and the feasibility of obtaining
competitive, lumpsum bids.
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 5
12. Conversed at some length with Mr. E. H. Praeger himself in
order that I might obtain verbal clarification of a number of what I
considered to be ambiguous or contradicting portions of the written
report.
13. Conferred with the Advisory Architects, Consulting Engineers,
and others.
14. Conferred with other individuals who have maintained a long
interest in the Capitol, including Senators, Congressmen, and design
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
professionals.
15. Spoke with a British stone preservation expert who inspected the
Capitol, and then read several of his papers regarding the deterioration
of stone generally and in England in particular.
16. Inspected, at no cost to the Government, several European
restoration projects.
17. Personally examined the space needs of the House of Representa-
tives and, to some degree, the space needs of the Senate. Have explored
all areas on the House Side of the Capitol, from the basement through the
attic, and many of the Senate areas. Several discussions have been held
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 6
with Senator Jordan about my proceeding with a full space study of Senate
facilities and he has indicated recently that the moves of Senators and
others will be completed shortly so the space study may proceed.
18. Examined and studied the matter of how the Congress uses the
building, how the public (visitors) also uses the building, and, further, how
their respective and simultaneous needs must be considered.
19. Spent untold hours in review of the various data and in the reading
of articles by many persons concerned with preservation, planning, the
history of the Capitol, and in the re-examination of the Praeger report.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
After these many months of study and investigation, I am prepared to
offer the following professional judgments, which for the purposes of this
brief presentation have been necessarily simplified:
1. The structural adequacy of the west wall is, in fact, indeterminate.
As many experts will declare that it is stable as will say that it is unstable.
But even those who support the position of stability admit to the indeter-
minacy of the loading computations, and, therefore, say that the wall should
be strengthened as an insurance against the probability of a possible failure.
Thus, although there appears to be no imminent danger of an immediate collapse,
there may well be concentrations of forces that have accumulated through
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 7
structural and other changes over the years and that could, under certain
circumstances, be triggered and released. There appears, then, to be no
basic disagreement regarding the need to strengthen, and thus stabilize
the wall in some fashion. Further, there appears to be no disagreement
that this goal may be achieved in at least two ways, one of which is through
restoration, or a strengthening of the wall in situ, and another of which is
through an extension of the building itself, which will, in effect, buttress
and thus strengthen the wall.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
2. There appears to be no disagreement with regard to the exterior
appearance of the proposed extension, nor any disagreement with regard to
the total appearance of the Capitol that would result.
3. That human characteristic which manifests itself in our desire to
save and preserve at least some of our heritage, whether it be personal,
national, or international, finds a high degree of intensity in some, and it
may then be expressed in the feeling that preservation is a primary goal in
and of itself. I submit that the intensity with which that desire exists in
the spectrum of people's feelings must, in this instance, be weighed against
some of the physical needs of the Congress that must be met. If the
Congress, for example, were to commission the design of a new legislative
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 8
complex, the designers would undoubtedly need to assist in the writing of
a program which would describe the physical needs of the Congress in the
transaction of its daily business. The configuration of the building or
buildings would arise from a study of these needs. In this existing legis-
lative building, viz., the Capitol, these needs have changed and expanded
over the years, and, indeed, are continuing to do so. It is apparent that
complex problems such as these are not generally capable of simple solu-
tions. Recognizing that it may thus be an oversimplification to so state,
it is nevertheless my opinion that the Congress must weigh the sentiment
of preservation against its physical needs, taking into account the various
alternative methods of providing needed space in close proximity to the
legislative chambers.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
4. The argument can be made that the fact that the West Front
contains the last remaining exposed original wall, is indicative of the past
life and hence the growth of this living, working symbol of democracy and
freedom that is the Capitol. Sometime, of course, acceleration in the
growth of our Nation may diminish and perhaps that point is already in
sight. It has therefore been suggested that the existing physical outline
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 9
of the Capitol be considered inviolate at its present location. Somewhere
that position must surely be taken, but it appears that it is not necessarily
valid to presume that it cannot be taken at some other location, such as, for
example, that of the proposed extension.
5. The final cost of the proposed restoration appears to be indeter-
minate. Most experts feel that the cost will certainly be more than
$15, 000, 000, notwithstanding the written statement in the Praeger report.
The requirements of items 3 and 4 of Public Law 91-145, previously quoted,
indicated that a lumpsum contract for restoration of not more than
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
$15, 000, 000 must be capable of being obtained. I interpret these two items,
taken together, as meaning that the Congress has set a fixed, limited, i.e.,
maximum, cost of $15, 000, 000 as one of the criteria for the feasibility of
restoration. Experience in the construction of buildings indicates that a
lumpsum contract, in and of itself, is not an assurance that the designated
sum will indeed be the final cost. It is my considered professional opinion,
based upon my recent investigations as outlined above, that the restoration,
as proposed, cannot be accomplished for a total final cost of $15, 000, 000.
In that connection, it is important to recognize that even though the cost
per square foot of an extension might appear to be high because of the
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 10
particular kind of construction that would be necessary, any expenditure for
restoration, because no space would be added, would result in what mathe-
matically results in an infinite cost per square foot.
It is, further, worthy of note that there is no disagreement among the
advocates of the various positions that restoration work generally, and the
West Front of the Capitol in particular, should, because of its specialized
nature, be accomplished through the medium of a cost plus a fixed fee
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
contract rather than through a lumpsum agreement obtained on a competitive
bid basis.
Although the specifics of the other three provisions of Public Law 91-145
can generally be said to be capable of being met, with the obvious possibility
for disagreement regarding what is "safe, sound, durable, and beautiful for
the foreseeable future", I believe that it would be inappropriate to presume
that the cost limitation can or could be met.
Summarizing, then, I submit the following judgments: (a) although
it is relatively stable, the west wall needs repair and strengthening; (b) the
restoration method of strengthening the wall cannot be accomplished for a
guaranteed cost limit of $15, 000, 000; (c) the Congress must weigh and
Report on West Central Front of the Capitol
November 2, 1971
page 11
decide upon the relative importance and the appropriate methods of providing
for its space needs, as compared with the admittedly highly desirable goal of
preserving the exposed physical wall.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
2229 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
FRED SCHWENGEL
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
1ST DISTRICT, IOWA
SUBCOMMITTEES:
202-225-6576
FLOOD CONTROL
ROADS
DISTRICT OFFICE:
Congress of the United States
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUND
422 UNION ARCADE
WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT
DAVENPORT, IOWA 52801
APPALACHIA
319-324-3527
house of Representatives
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ALLAN SCHIMMEL
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Washington, D.C. 20515
SUBCOMMITTEES:
LIBRARY AND MEMORIALS
CHARLES CAMPBELL
May 11, 1971
ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL OFFICE
LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT
EQUIPMENT
The Honorable Gerald Ford
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
H-230, The Capitol
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Jerry:
In response to our conversation and after further
thought, I am herewith presenting some pertinent observa-
tions I think ought to be noted as you and the Building
Commission make your decisions on how to dispose of the
West Front.
Let me point out first that time is moving along.
The "Praeger" Report is in. It confirms the need for action
and is basically in agreement with the previous findings of
Messrs. Mueser, Severud, and Dr. Clair.
Condition I
"That through restoration, such West central front
can, without undue hazard to safety of the structure and
persons, be made safe, sound, durable, and beautiful for
the foreseeable future." The answer of the Report is that
it is possible by cleaning the wall, strengthening it
by grouting and restoring its appearance by repainting."
Analysis
This program is "Preservation", Jerry, not "Restora-
tion." It contemplates such work as may be possible within
the dollar limits stipulated, and insures that the West
Front will be the subject of continual replacement of deter-
iorating stonework over the years, with a continuation of
the program of repainting every four years. This is what we
have been doing, more or less, and has brought us to the need
for something different and better. This cannot be construed
by anyone as a restoration of the Central West Front to the
original work of Thornton, Latrobe and Bulfinch. Fifteen
Million Dollars seems a high price to pay to insure a continued
maintenance program into infinity, and to obscure from the pub-
lic by paint, the pristine early architecture of the West Front.
The Honorable Gerald Ford
May 11, 1971
Page 2
Condition II
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
"That restoration can be accomplished with no more
vacation of west central front space in the building proper
(excluding the terrace structure) than would be required by
the proposed extension Plan 2."
The answer of the Report is that since the "Restora-
tion" proposed by the Report is restricted in fact to "Pre-
servation", it will not be necessary to vacate any of the
West Front.
Analysis
Obviously, if the work of "Preservation" is restricted
to "cleaning the wall, strengthening it by grouting and re-
storing its appearance by repainting", vacation of the West
Central Front may well be not necessary. However, strengthening
limited to that possible for Fifteen Million Dollars may well
be insufficient to assure that a structural failure may not
occur. So, Jerry, it is quite obvious that the stability now
enjoyed by all the rest of the Capitol, especially on the East
Front and in the Wings, will not be enjoyed in the central
section of the West Front if all we do is clean the walls and
strengthen by grouting and restoring its appearance by painting.
Condition III
"That the method or methods of accomplishing restoration
can be so described or specific as to form the basis for per-
formance of the restoration work by competitive, lump sum,
fixed price construction bid or bids."
The answer of the Report is that "Restoration" (SIC)
methods can be specified to form a basis for performance of
the work by competitive lump sum construction bids.
Analysis
There is no question that lump sum bids could be ob-
tained on a basis of: "do work of cleaning the wall, strengthening
it by grouting and restoring its appearance by painting" - to the
extent possible for Fifteen Million Dollars. The Report states,
however, that "A cost-plus contract seems more realistic----."
The Honorable Gerald Ford
May 11, 1971
Page 3
Condition IV
"That the cost of "Restoration" (SIC) would not
exceed $15,000,000.00."
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
The Report includes an estimate that consists of
itemizations of work totalling something less than Fifteen
Million Dollars.
Analysis
The entire estimate is presumptive, and is based
on quantities of work unknown before the removal of paint
reveals the extent of the work.
Condition V
"That the time schedule for accomplishing the res-
toration work will not exceed that heretofore projected for
accomplishing the Plan 2 extension work: Provided further,
that after consideration of the restoration study report,
if the Commission concludes that all five of the conditions
hereinbefore specified are met, the Commission shall then
make recommendations to the Congress on the question of
whether to extend or restore the West central front of the
Capitol."
The answer of the Report is that the "Restoration"
(SIC) work can be accomplished within the time projected
for the Plan 2 extension work.
Analysis
If the work of "cleaning the wall, strengthening it
by grouting and restoring its appearance by painting" - work
of preservation, not restoration, is limited to what can be
done for Fifteen Million Dollars, one cannot take issue with
the fact that such work could be accomplished within the time
projected for the Plan 2 extension work.
Should Congress elect to save the West Front of the
Capitol without Extension, the acceptable alternate, recon-
struction with permanent stone, would cost $31,000,000.00
(according to the report). For something in the order of
$20,000,000.00 additional, we could have an extended West Front
The Honorable Gerald Ford
May 11, 1971
Page 4
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
that would satisfy the need for additional space, service,
horizontal circulation private to legislators, additional
restaurant facilities for legislators and the public, and
for the adequate accommodation of visitors (ten million of
whom now pass through the Capitol annually) - not to mention
the esthetic improvement that is evident in the model now
on display, in Statuary Hall, considered by Bulfinch, sug-
gested by Walter, endorsed by Olmstead, and obviously
necessary to bring today's Capitol in scale with the wing
and dome additions of the eighteen sixties - the Purist
alternate would be to revert to the wooden dome of 1830,
and remove the Senate and House wings.
The Extension of the West Front of the Capitol will
be the seventh increment of growth of the Capitol; one which
will put the West Front in scale with the remainder of the
Capitol for the first time since the eighteen sixties.
Jerry, as I understand the restoration that would
be possible in the "Praeger" Report, we would still have
a woefully inadequate facility for the visiting public.
It grieves me to note that the Rotunda is now the reception
center. This is almost holy ground, if the Capitol has such,
and this should be one of the principle and impressive stops
on the regular tour and not a reception center where guides
wait for their tour groups.
The plan envisioned with the extension of the Capitol
provides for adequate reception center for visitors and where
people could approach from the west using a moving elevator.
The reception center, of course, should have and would have
adequate rest room and wash room facilities, not now available
for the public.
With the extension, I hope we could arrange for an
auditorium where groups could have a brief motion picture
story and/or tune in an intercom system or an intercom tele-
vision system which would enable having brief visits with a
Congressman who would be sitting in his office where he could
greet them and answer questions for a period, or where the
Congressman or Senator could actually come to meet and visit
with constituents.
So, Jerry, I plead for the extension as originally
planned, possibly with some modifications as we develop the
plan, but one that I believe must go forward to serve the
public interest and especially the public that comes here to
The Honorable Gerald Ford
May 11, 1971
Page 5
visit who need to and could catch something of the fire
that burns in the hearts of the many thousands who have
worked and are still working in the Capitol.
With warmest regards, I am
FORD i LIBRARY CERALD
Sincerely yours,
FRED SCHWENGEL
Member of Congress
FS:sc
P.S. Enclosed is a list of the twelve architects and
engineers who have been most closely associated
with the extension of the Capitol project. As
you will note, they are men of high qualifications
and members of prestigious organizations.
APPENDIX
Those Twelve Architects and Engineers Most Closely Connected with the
Extension of the Capitol Project
Gilmore D. Clarke, Hon. A.I.A. *
John F. Harbeson, F.A.I.A. **
Paul Thiry, F.A.I.A. ****
The Architectural Consultants to the Architect of
the Capitol for the Extension of the Capitol Project.
Miles N. Clair, P. E.
The Special Structural Consultant to the Commission
for the Extension of the Capitol Project.
Roscoe DeWitt. F.A.I.A.
A. J. Tatum, A.I.A.
Alfred Easton Poor, F.A.I.A. ********
Albert Homer Swanke, A.I.A.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Jesse M. Shelton, A.I.A.
A. Pearson Almond, A.I.A.
The Associate Architects for the Extension of the Capitol
Project (under contract to the Architect of the Capitol)
William H. Mueser, P.E. ****
Fred N. Severud, P. E. *****
The Structural Consultants to the Associate Architects
of the Architect of the Capitol for the Extension of the Capitol
Project.
*
For seventeen years a member of the National Fine Arts Commission
(Chairman for thirteen years).
**
Consultant for the restoration of the Senate and House Chambers.
***
Member, National Capitol Planning Commission.
****
Conducted original sub-surface report on the Capitol -- Foundation
Engineer for the Extension of the East Front.
*****
Designated by the American Institute of Architects as the Structural
Engineer most qualified to evaluate the structural aspects of the West
Front -- Structural Engineer for the Extension of the East Front of the
Capitol.
******
President, The National Academy of Design.
(NOTE: All Fellows of the American Institute of Architects above-listed are
"Fellows of Design".)
MINORITY LEADER
United States
house of Representatives
our GERALD FORD
& LIBRARY
Wesh Event
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
January 2, 1971
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives
Member, Commission for Extension of the United
States Capitol
Washington, D. C.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
My dear Mr. Minority Leader:
In accordance with the terms of their contract, Praeger-
Kavanagh-Waterbury, the engineers-architects engaged by contract,
July 1, 1970, at the direction of the Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol to make the feasibility study with
respect to restoration of the West Central Front of the United
States Capitol required by Public Law 91-145, have completed their
study and submitted their report to me within the required time
period.
In accordance with the instructions of the Commission, I
am transmitting a copy of the report to you, herewith.
I will proceed to make a study and analysis of the re-
port and will be properly prepared to meet and discuss the report
with the Commission when the 92nd Congress convenes.
With warm regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Дато Mario E. & Campioli Campin.
Acting Architect of the Capitol
January 2, 1971
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives
Member, Commission for Extension of the United
States Capitol
Washington, D. C.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
My dear Mr. Minority Leader:
In accordance with the terms of their contract, Praeger-
Kavanagh-Waterbury, the engineers-architects engaged by contract,
July 1, 1970, at the direction of the Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol to make the feasibility study with
respect to restoration of the West Central Front of the United
States Capitol required by Public Law 91-145, have completed their
study and submitted their report to me within the required time
period.
In accordance with the instructions of the Commission, I
am transmitting a copy of the report to you, herewith.
I will proceed to make a study and analysis of the re-
port and will be properly prepared to meet and discuss the report
with the Commission when the 92nd Congress convenes.
With warm regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Mario E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol