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
143605650
label
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (8)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
143605650
contentType
document
title
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (8)
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
143605650
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
1b364714a1d5b444
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box J30, folder "West Front Extension: General,
1965-1973 (8)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
February 28, 1973
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
West Central Front of the Capitol
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
In meeting of March 8, 1972, the Commission met and considered the
restoration feasibility and cost study and report made pursuant to the
provisions of Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969. The
Commission established to its satisfaction that all five of the conditions
specified in Public Law 91-145, relating to restoration, could not be met.
Thereupon, pursuant to Public Law 91-145, the Commission directed
the Architect of the Capitol to proceed with the preparation of final plans
for extending the west central front in accord with Plan 2 which had already
been approved by the Commission.
The Architect of the Capitol was prevented from proceeding as
directed by the Commission, by the following language in the "Legislative
Branch Appropriation Act, 1973, Public Law 92-342, approved July 10, 1972:
"Extension of the Capitol
"Funds available under this appropriation may be used for
the preparation of preliminary plans for the extension of
the west central front: Provided, however, That no
funds may be used for the preparation of the final plans
or initiation of construction of said project until
specifically approved and appropriated therefor by the
Congress."
- 2 -
The purpose of this language, according to its proponents, was to prevent
the expenditure of planning funds already appropriated for that purpose until
the Congress itself had specifically approved and appropriated funds for the
Extension of the West Central Front as approved by the Commission.
The Architect estimated that the cost of planning and construction of
the extension is approximately $60 million.
FORD & LIBRARY 038470
The Commission has again considered the extension project and has con-
cluded that the project should proceed without further delay, primarily because
(1) the extension offers the best solution for insuring the future stability,
appearance, and usefulness of the Capitol and (2) the urgent need for space in
the Capitol for legislative purposes is growing daily.
In order to obtain the specific approval of funding from the Congress for
the extension project, the Architect of the Capitol is hereby directed to
present to the Committees on Appropriations a request for $58 million
($60 million less $2 million already appropriated) for the fiscal year 1974.
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
President of the Senate
Chairman
Majority Leader of the House
Majority Leader of the Senate
Minority Leader of the House
Minority Leader of the Senate
Architect of the Capitol
MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION
OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
March 8, 1972
The Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol met in
Room EF-100 in the Capitol at 10:00 a.m. on March 8, 1972.
The following Members of the Commission were present:
Speaker Carl Albert, Chairman
Hon. Spiro T. Agnew, President of the Senate
Hon. Mike Mansfield, Majority Leader of the Senate
Hon. Hugh Scott, Minority Leader of the Senate
Hon. Hale Boggs, Majority Leader of the House
Hon. Gerald R. Ford, Minority Leader of the House
Hon. George M. White, Architect of the Capitol
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
The following were also present:
Mr. Walter L. Mote, Administrative Assistant to the President of
the Senate
Mr. Michael L. Reed, Legislative Assistant to the Speaker
Mr. William F. Hildenbrand, Administrative Assistant to the
Minority Leader of the Senate
Mr. Mario E. Campioli, Assistant Architect of the Capitol
Mr. Philip L. Roof, Executive Assistant to the Architect of the
Capitol
Mr. Charles A. Henlock, Administrative Officer, Office of the
Architect of the Capitol
Mr. Frederick W. Winkelmann, General Counsel, Office of the Architect
of the Capitol
Mr. William F. Raines, Jr., Assistant to the Executive Assistant to
the Architect of the Capitol
- 2 -
Speaker Albert stated that the meeting had been called in order that the
Commission might formally consider the report of Praeger-Kavanagh-
Waterbury on the feasibility and cost of the restoration of the West Central
Front of the Capitol. Copies of this report were given to the Commission
Members in December 1970 and the Architect of the Capitol had summarized
it in his March 6, 1972 memorandum to the Members of the Commission.
The Architect's March 6th memorandum is attached and hereby made a part
of these minutes.
Upon finding that all of the Commission Members had read the afore-
mentioned memorandum, the Speaker asked that Mr. White make a statement
highlighting the results of his study of the Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury
report, his review of previous studies, and his personal examination of the
condition of the West Front wall.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Mr. White's statement follows:
"In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 91-145, this Commission
is obligated to decide whether or not the Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury report
has established to our satisfaction that all five conditions specified for the
restoration study have been met. If we agree that the conditions have been
met, we must then recommend to the Congress whether the West Front should
be restored or extended. If we agree that the conditions have not been met,
we must then direct the preparation of final plans for extending the West
Central Front in accordance with Plan 2 which the Commission has already
approved.
- 3 -
"I wish to state that I came into the West Front controversy without any
preconceived opinions. I was as completely unbiased as I consider possible.
If I had been influenced in any way it was probably by the AIA position of
opposition to the extension, since I was an officer and director of that
organization. I mention this to indicate that I have attempted to be as
objective as possible in my approach to the problem in order that I might
offer this Commission my best professional advice and wisest judgment.
"As I have stated in my memorandum to you, I have reviewed everything
that I could find that has previously been written and reported on this
subject and I have carefully considered and weighed this mass of information.
"With regard to the Praeger report, some of the conclusions cannot be
disputed. However, some of the conclusions are based on matters that are
indeterminate.
The cost of restoration will, in my opinion and that of others, certainly
go beyond the $15, 000, 000 specified in the law. I have been involved in the
construction industry for a long time and know that seldom does a final con-
struction cost not exceed the estimate. So, I went to the people who would
be putting their money on the line in undertaking the proposed restoration --
the general contractors who might be bidding on the project. I inquired of
John Healy, President of the Associated General Contractors of America;
of J. Slater Davidson, President of the Chas. H. Tompkins Co., whose firm
worked on the East Front extension; and of R. P. Marshall of the Turner
Construction Company, a nationwide construction company. None would
agree to undertake a fixed-lumpsum contract with a maximum limit of
$15, 000, 000 for this kind of project. They had all read the report and
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
decided that the work involved too many unknowns. This project, if adver-
tised for open, competitive, lumpsum bidding, would be a Christmas tree
for the contractors. Extras for dealing with the many unknowns could make
the final cost astronomical. I sincerely believe that we cannot say that the
$15, 000, 000 requirement can be met. Even the Praeger report advises that
a lumpsum, fixed price construction bid is not proper for restoration work.
"In commenting on the report itself, technically it is an excellent report,
prepared with a high degree of engineering skill, and well organized.
Substantively, as opposed to technically, it has many qualifications. One
draws opposing conclusions from different portions of the report and the
final recommendations seem to be qualified and in opposition to some of the
report's conclusions.
- 4 -
"In some instances, gratuitous opinions are offered that are not of an
engineering nature. This indicates some bias to me and diminishes the
credibility of the report itself. The recommendations do not entirely
follow the weight of the evidence, in a purely scientific sense.
"The wall can be repaired in place. There was a prior argument that
took the position that it could not, or at least should not, be done. But it
can be done. At what cost, and how satisfactory the results will be in
appearance and in future maintenance, are doubtful areas.
"The history of the building has been one of change and alteration from
the day it was conceived. All of the changes have been a source of contro-
versy. This is the home of the greatest deliberative body in the world and
it is perhaps fitting that the building should itself be the center of delibera-
tive discourse. The following brief description of the history in terms of
change may serve to illustrate the continuous alterations and additions to
which the building has been subjected.
1. Original North Wing
Begun 1793 - completed 1800
Senate occupied from 1800 - 1859
House occupied 1800 - 1801
1804 - - 1807
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Supreme Court occupied 1801 - 1935
Library of Congress occupied 1800 - 1824
2. 2-story Senate Chamber converted to separate stories with
Supreme Court occupying lower chamber from 1810 - 1860
3. Temporary structure at location of Statuary Hall occupied by
House from 1801 - 1804
4. South Wing completed in 1807
Occupied by House 1807 - 1857
5. Both North and South Wings (and 1-story wooden connecting
passageway) burned in 1814 and reconstruction was completed
in 1819
- 5 -
6. Central Section begun in 1818 and completed in 1829
Library of Congress occupied 2 stories of West Central
Front 1824 - 1897
Altered to provide office spaces after 1897
7. Present Senate and House Wings begun in 1851 and completed
in 1859
8. Old low dome replaced from 1856 - 1865
9. West Central section reconstructed following a fire in
1851
10. Terraces on North, South and West added 1884 - 1892
11. Gas explosion in old North Wing required reconstruction in
1898
12. Replacement of original wood roof over the Statuary Hall wing
and the Old Supreme Court wing with steel and concrete in 1902.
13. Complete remodeling of Senate and House Chambers, 1949 - 1951,
substantially as they appear today.
14. East Front extension constructed 1958 - 1962
15. Interior alterations and changes 1958 - 1972
FORD GERALD LIBRARY
"I shall illustrate the major changes by a model we have here.
"The proposal for extending the West Front as a means of buttressing
the wall would mean a change to the terraces and an addition of space.
Many architects feel that the proposed design would be an architectural
improvement and I have heard no architectural criticism of the design.
There is a feeling that the dome will be enhanced by its new relationship to
the West Front.
"The question is really one of sentiment on the part of those who
oppose any change to the west wall and want it saved at any cost. I submit
that the life and history of the building has been one of growth and change
as the Nation has grown and the needs of the Congress have increased.
- 6 -
"As I said before, the cost of restoration is indeterminate but would
probably be at least $20, 000, 000. The cost of the extension may run from
$50, 000, 000 to $60, 000, 000. Thus, the expenditure of an additional
approximate amount of $40, 000, 000 will give us space that is sorely needed.
The Speaker recently asked me to make a space utilization study on the
House side of the Capitol and in the House Office Buildings. I made that
study and found that there were tremendous space needs on the House side.
Senator Jordan has now authorized me to make an investigation of space
needs on the Senate side of the Capitol and in the Senate Office Buildings.
Space needs will continue to increase with the growth of Senate-House
activities.
"After a great deal of soul-searching, I concluded that rather than
think in terms of "preservation" or "extension", I should think in terms of
what would best serve the people of this Nation. The building has tremen-
dous meaning for the people because they regard it as a symbol of democracy
and a Temple of Liberty. The great mass of the people who view this
building see it as a beautiful scene and are unconcerned with the theoretical
priorities of importance of various exterior features. Their money, it
seems to me, would be best spent by proceeding with the extension rather
than trying to save the one remaining original exposed wall of the building.
The fact that it is the last visible part of the wall is an indication of what
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
the building is. It is not a museum. It is a living, working building in
which the elected representatives of the people must conduct the affairs of
the legislative branch of the government.
"In my opinion, two and perhaps three of the five requirements cannot
be met. In accordance with the law then, and for the broader reasons that
I have indicated, it is my opinion that we should proceed with the extension.
Speaker Albert asked what action was now required of the Commission.
Mr. White replied that a decision is required regarding whether the Praeger
report shows to the satisfaction of the Commission that the five conditions
specified by law have been met. If the Commission decides that the five
conditions have been met, the Commission would then make recommendations
- 7 -
to the Congress on whether to extend or restore the West Front. If the
Commission decides that the five conditions have not been met, the Architect
of the Capitol would then be directed to proceed with the preparation of final
contract drawings and specifications for the extension of the West Central
Front. $2, 000, 000 has already been appropriated by the Congress for this
purpose.
Vice President Agnew asked if the Architect's estimate that the exten-
sion will cost approximately $60, 000, 000 could be considered a firm estimate
or if it would be as indefinite as the estimated cost of restoration appeared
to be. Mr. White stated that the two estimates had been made on entirely
different bases. The estimate for restoration is not as credible because
there are so many unknowns involved. In the case of the extension, the
estimates have been based on specifics because all conditions are known,
except, of course, that of future price escalation.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
The Vice President asked how many square feet of floor space would be
gained if the West Central Front were to be extended and what the cost per
square foot would be. Mr. Campioli stated that there would be a gross
increase of 270, 000 square feet, 165, 000 of which would be usable space, and
that the cost per square foot would be around $200, taking into account price
escalation into 1976. Mr. White mentioned that a monumental building such
as the Capitol would ordinarily cost more to alter than would simpler
structures.
- 8 -
Congressman Boggs asked if thought had been given to amending the
extension plans to eliminate the proposals that have met with opposition.
Mr. White said one point of contention had been the proposed visitor center
in the West Front extension and that he considered the complaint a valid
one. He felt that all space gained should be used primarily for the purposes
of the Congress.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Vice President Agnew asked if there would be a possibility of an
extension of less ambitious size. Mr. White stated that several possibilities
had been studied but that no alternative had been found that would appreciably
change the order of magnitude.
Congressman Boggs inquired about the reaction of the architectural pro-
fession to the extension. Mr. White said that there were many architects
in favor of the extension. The American Institute of Architects had appointed
a Task Force of six men to investigate the feasibility of a restoration. The
Task Force, upon completion of its study, had recommended to the Board of
Directors that the Institute take a position of opposition to an extension.
That recommendation, made by a small group of people, had thereby become
the AIA official position. However, he said, many of his fellow architects,
including some of the most prominent ones, do not agree with the idea of
preserving the walls of the Capitol as an end in itself. As an example, Bob
Durham, past President of the AIA and a leader in the battle against
- 9 -
extending the East Front of the Capitol, had recently said to him, "I looked
at the extended East Front and said to myself, 'What was all the argument
about? I think we architects are often too sentimental. '''
Representative Ford asked if he could read the five conditions specified
in the law to be met by restoration in order that Mr. White could make a
statement on each of them individually. He then read the following condition:
"(1) 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 fore-
seeable future;"
Mr. White stated that the wall can be made relatively safe and sound.
However, he said, there is grave doubt that it can be made durable and
beautiful except with continued and substantial maintenance.
Representative Ford then read the next condition:
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
"(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;"
Mr. White said that this was a true statement.
Representative Ford then read the following conditions:
"(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing restora-
tion 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;"
Mr. White stated that conditions 3 and 4, taken together, cannot, in
his opinion, be said to be capable of attainment.
- 10 -
Representative Ford then read the final condition:
"(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the restoration
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 here-
inbefore 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."
Mr. White stated that this condition can be met.
Representative Ford then asked the Architect of the Capitol the following
question: "If this were your building, and you had full jurisdiction, what would
be your recommendation?" Mr. White replied, "I would extend the west central
front."
Speaker Albert stated that he was prepared to go along with recommending
the extension project. He said that the Commission must decide whether the
Capitol should be extended to make it the most usable type of building for the
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Congress or if, in spite of its many changes, it should be considered a shrine
more important to preserve in its present state than to extend to meet the
requirements of the Senate and the House. The Speaker said the piece of wall
is not the shrine, but the building itself is the shrine.
Senator Mansfield stated that he was in favor of the extension.
Representative Boggs stated that he was in favor of the extension.
Vice President Agnew said that he had one reservation about voting for the
extension. Although he did not consider it sensible to cling to the attitude
that there is something sacrosanct about the west wall, in view of the history
- 11 -
of the building, he questioned justifying the extension on the basis of space
needs. However, he admitted that he was not familiar enough with the needs
of the Congress for space in the Capitol to pass judgment and said he would
defer to the Members of the Senate and House who daily use the building.
Speaker Albert said that space needs in the Capitol are presently one of his
most serious problems and that the problem is becoming more severe as the
congressional districts grow and Members are authorized to have more staff
members, as congressional services to the people increase, and as new
committees are formed. Senator Mansfield stated that the need for space
is much greater on the House side of the Capitol but that the Senate also has
need for additional space in the building. Vice President Agnew then said
that, upon the assurances of the leaders of Congress that additional space is
a pressing need, he was in favor of extending the West Front.
Cost Estimate
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Vice President Agnew then asked if the cost estimate for the extension
was based on the premise that escalation will be held at the present freeze
levels. If so, he felt it would be more realistic to be less optimistic in
predicting the final cost figure for the extension. He said that the people
resent the fact that all government construction costs are estimated too
optimistically and the higher final construction costs that result because of
this cause some breach in credibility. Since the Commission is talking about
- 12 -
work on the Capitol, he felt that an estimate of $100, 000, 000 would not be a
formidable estimate for work that will serve the Congress and the country
for years.
Speaker Albert asked if the bidding would be affected if the estimated
cost were to be raised to between $70 and $90 million. Mr. White stated
that although bidding would be restricted to the companies that would be able
to get bonding in that amount, that announcements of an estimated cost are
common in the industry and would not affect the final bid amount.
Mr. White suggested that the matter of the estimate be deferred until
the completion of the final plans. At that time, a more realistic estimate
can be made. Mr. Reed stated that, under the terms of the law, the Com-
mission's only responsibility at this time relates to the recommendations of
the Praeger report and that the estimated cost of the project would be
brought up when funds for construction are requested of the Appropriations
Committees.
Decision on Praeger Report
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Representative Boggs made the following motion:
"Whereas, the Commission has established to its satisfaction that
all five of the conditions specified in Public Law 91-145, relating
to restoration, cannot be met, the Commission directs the
Architect of the Capitol to proceed with the preparation of final
plans for extending the west central front in accord with Plan 2
heretofore approved by the Commission."
The motion was put to vote and was unanimously agreed to.
- 13 -
Formal Resolution
It was agreed that a formal resolution would be prepared by Mr. Reed
and Mr. Roof and that it would be taken to each Member of the Commission
for signature before release to the press later in the day. The approved
resolution is attached and hereby made a part of these minutes.
Associate Architects
Mr. White stated that the Commission would have to make a determina-
tion about the architects to be engaged for the preparation of final working
drawings and specifications for the extension project. He said that the
architects who had prepared the preliminary plans might be the best ones
for the project but that he would like permission to investigate the availa-
bility of other architectural firms that might be qualified for the work.
His findings would then be reported to the Commission for guidance in
FORD is LIBRARY CERALD
selecting the Associate Architects for the development of the final plans.
Vice President Agnew stated that he was in agreement with Mr. White's
proposal, feeling that the work was of such magnitude that another architect
or architects might be needed in addition to those engaged for the preparation
of the preliminary plans. There was no objection to Mr. White's proposal
from the other Commission Members.
- 14 -
Other Items on the Agenda
Time did not permit consideration of the following items on the agenda:
1. (b) Use of the old sandstone removed from the East Front
Extension.
2. Testimony of the Honorable Gilbert Gude of Maryland and the
Honorable Michael J. Harrington of Massachusetts in favor of beautification
of the East Capitol Plaza by constructing garage and other facilities under-
ground.
3. Consideration of the request of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority for construction of their tunnel along D Street, S. E.,
and construction of a portion of one of their terminals in the United States
Capitol Grounds (Square 692, Congressional Hotel site) at First and
D Streets, S. E.
In this respect, Public Law 91-143, approved December 9, 1969
(83 Stat. 322), provides in Section 5(a):
"No portion of the Adopted Regional System shall
be constructed within the United States Capitol
Grounds except upon approval of the Commission
for Extension of the United States Capitol."
It was decided that another meeting of the Commission will be held in
the near future, at which time these three items will be considered.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Recorded by Mildred H. Hall
Adm. Asst. to the Architect
COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
March 8, 1972
Whereas Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969, provides:
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL
For an additional amount for Extension of the Capitol", $2,275,000,
to be expended under the direction of the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol as authorized by law: Provided, That
such portion of the foregoing appropriation as may be necessary shall
be used for emergency shoring and repairs of, and related work on,
the west central front of the Capitol: Provided further, That not to
exceed $250,000 of the foregoing appropriation shall be used for the
employment of independent nongovernmental engineering and other
necessary services for studying and reporting (within six months
after the date of the employment contract) on the feasibility and cost
of restoring such west central front under such terms and conditions
as the Commission may determine: Provided, however, That pending
the completion and consideration of such study and report, no further
work toward extension of such west central front shall be carried on:
Provided further, That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the Commission shall
direct the preparation of final plans for extending such west central
front in accord with Plan 2 (which said Commission has approved),
unless such restoration study report establishes to the satisfaction of
the Commission:
(1) That through restoration, such west central front can, with-
out undue hazard to safety of the structure and persons, be made
safe, sound, durable, and beautiful for the foreseeable future;
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more vaca-
tion 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 perform-
ance 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 projected for accomplishing
the Plan 2 extension work: Provided further. That after considera-
tion 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.
- 2 -
Whereas, the restoration feasibility and cost study and report of
Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Consulting Engineers-Architects, made
pursuant to Public Law 91-145, was considered by the Commission at its
meeting of March 8, 1972, in Room EF-100 of the Capitol; and
Whereas, the Commission established to its satisfaction that all
five of the conditions specified in Public Law 91-145, relating to
restoration, cannot be met: Now, therefore, be it resolved,
That the Architect of the Capitol is hereby directed to proceed with
the preparation of final plans for extending the west central front in
accord with Plan 2 heretofore approved by the Commission.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Carl albert
Speaker of the House of Representa-
Aprin President of L. the am Senate
tives, Chairman
the Majority Leader Bojn of the House
Majority hike Leader of the Senate
Herned Minority Leader R. of the Ford House Hugh Scott
Minority Leader of the Senate
Jamys Architect M. of the Milk Capitol
OF
THE ARCHITECT
THE CAPITO/
*
1793
*
Washington, D.C. 20515
March 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR
EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL:
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
The primary purpose of this meeting is the consideration by
the Commission of the January, 1971 report of the firm of Praeger-
Kavanagh-Waterbury, Consulting Engineers and Architects, relating
to the feasibility and cost of the restoration of the West Central
Front of the Capitol, as proposed in such report.
Under the prevailing statute providing for this report, the
Commission is charged with the responsibility of establishing to
its satisfaction whether the five conditions specified in the law
are met.
If the Commission determines that the five conditions are not
met, then the law provides that the Commission shall direct the
preparation of final plans for extending the West Central Front in
accord with Plan 2 which the Commission has heretofore approved.
If the Commission concludes that the five conditions are met,
then the law provides that the Commission shall make recommendations
to the Congress on the question of whether to extend or restore the
front.
Page 2
Law Relating to These Determinations:
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 reporting on the feasibility and cost of restoring
the front.
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 your consideration today:
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
"***That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the
Commission shall direct the preparation of final
plans for extending such west central front in
accord with Plan 2 (which said Commission has
approved), unless such restoration study report
establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission:
"(1) 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;
"(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 construc-
tion bid or bids;
Page 3
"(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
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."
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, on July 1, 1970.
The Praeger report was received at the end of December, 1970, and
was forwarded immediately to all Members of the Commission and
released to the press and others interested.
FORD & LIBRARI GERALD
Statement of the Architect of the Capitol Relating to his Study
of the West Front Problem:
Early last 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
assisting them to evaluate the Praeger report, I began a detailed
professional review of all available information relating to the
history and development of the West Central Front proposals.
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.
Page 4
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.
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
documents 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 &
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Lichtner Co., Inc.
8. A study of the various reports of the former Architect of
the 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.
Page 5
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 feasbility of
obtaining competitive, lumpsum bids.
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 professionals.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
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
Representatives 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 with Senator Jordan about my proceeding
with a full space study of Senate facilities and he has now approved
my proceeding with that study.
Page 6
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.
Professional Judgments of the Architect:
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,
FORD 2 LIBRARY GERALD
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 indeterminacy 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 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
Page 7
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.
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,
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
for example, were to commission the design of a new legislative
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 legislative 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 solutions. Recognizing
that it may thus be an oversimplification to so state, it is
Page 8
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.
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 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
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
of the proposed extension.
5. The final cost of the proposed restoration appears to be
indeterminate. 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 $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
Page 9
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 particular kind of
construction that would be necessary, any expenditure for restoration,
because no space would be added, would result in what mathematically
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
GERALD FORD LIBRAR,
medium of a cost plus a fixed fee 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.
Summary:
Summarizing, then, I submit the following judgments: (a) although
it is relatively stable, the west wall needs repair and strengthening;
Page 10
(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 decide upon the relative importance and
the appropriate methods of providing for its space needs in the
Capitol, as compared with the admittedly highly desirable goal of
preserving the exposed physical wall.
Additional information will be available at the meeting of
the Commission.
George M. White
FORD is LIBRARY
Architect of the Capitol