South Court Rehabilitation Department OF THE Treasury guideunes for the Rehabilitation and Design OF A Library and Garden IN THE South Court of the Historic Treasury Building IN Washington, DC Contents The Mandate: Challenges and Opportunities 2 Summary of Recommendations 4 Givens and Conceptual Alternatives 7 Site Constraints 7 Spatial Options 8 Tlie Solution: A Synthesis of Architecture, Landscape and Preservation 10 Library Guidelines and Concepts 10 Landscape Considerations 12 Preservation Issues 14 The Design Process 15 Comments on the Budget and Phasing the Project 17 Appendices 18 Historical Background 18 The Charrette Agenda 21 Charrette Team Biographies 22 List of Participants 24 Cover: West facade of the historic Treasury Building. South Court Rehabilitation Department OF THE Treasury Guidelines for the Rehabilitation and Design OF A Library and Garden IN THE South Court of the Historic Treasury Building IN Washington, DC Report of the Design Charrette Team 28-29 July 1992 Prepared for the Department of the Treasury Prepared By Thomas Walton, Ph.D. School of Architecture The Catholic University of America With the Assistance of the Design Arts Program National Endowment for the Arts The Mandate: Challenges AND Opportunities The Department of the Treasury intends to rehabilitate the South Court of its historic Main Building to house a basement-level library and landscaped terrace. Funds to initiate this task were appropriated in 1990, and Treasury officials hope to develop complete schematic plans and finish the first phase of the courtyard construction in conjunction with an on-going roof replacement project. The result of this strategy should be significant savings of taxpayer dollars as it will permit a much more efficient use of the $200,000-a-year tower crane that is needed for both jobs. But more than construction dollars are at stake here. In his remarks introducing this undertaking, the Department's Assistant Secre- tar)' for Management David M. Nummy empha- sized another important consideration — steward- ship: "The Treasury Building is one of the most magnificent and historically important structures in the United States. From an architectural perspective, it is a privilege to work here and we take pride in how we maintain, indeed, are stewards of this great edifice." While a more complete summar)' of the development of the Treasury Building is part of Appendix A, it is essential to note that, after the White House and the Capitol, it is the third oldest existing federal government structure in Washington, DC. Its earliest wings, built of sandstone, were erected between 1836 and 1842 according to the Greek Revival design of Robert Mills, one of this nation's premier architects (other Mills' commissions include the Washing- ton Monument and the Patent Office Building in Washington, DC). Perhaps, for the project at hand, the key issue in this history is that the South Court is the only place where it is possible to have an unobstructed view of the original Mills' facades. (The North Court contains a computer center and chilling tower and the exterior facades and later additions to the Trea- sury were all redone or constructed in granite.) A further challenge in the South Court rehabilitation is the fact that it is presently the site of a structure designed and used, from 1891 to 1910, as the office and drafting room of the Supervising Architect. Hallmarks of this "pavil- ion" include its dramatic skylit roof trusses and the notion that its panel and steel framework construction were intended to make it "por- table." It originally was the home of up to 160 architects, the first "firm" of this size in the world, whose architectural credits include the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, the Post Office in Pueblo, Colorado, and the Custom House in New London, Connecticut. Now the structure is unoccupied and a safety hazard. In addition, significant interior alterations were made when it was used as an employee cafeteria from 1944 until 1990. (Again, see Appendix A for a more thorough history.) In this rich context, the Department of the Treasury has three design objectives: 1 . To excavate the South Coun at least one level below grade to create space for an underground library. 2. To landscape the level above the proposed basement librar)' as an accessible and attractive open space for employees and visitors. 3. To preserve and enhance the architectural heritage uniquely present in the courtyard. After the White House and the Capitol, the Treasury Building is the third oldest existing federal go\emment structure in Washington, DC. Programmatically, this mandate is both exciting and complex. In the spirit of continued steward- ship, therefore, the Department convened a charrette — the term comes from a French phrase that described the hectic rush of students at the Ecole des Beaux Arts to complete their architec- tural drawings and today refers to a short but intense study of a particular design problem. In this case, the goal was to prepare guideUnes and design concepts to help assure that development of the South Court project will result in the best possible solution. The charrette team's recom- mendations are oudined in the pages that follow. They are divided among these categories: notes on the site and schematic design options; spe- cific guidelines addressing the library, landscape and preservation issues; comments on selecting the design team and certain aspects of the design process; and general thoughts on the budget and phasing of the project. The charrette was organized by the Design Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts and was held on July 28 and 29, 1992, in the Main Treasury Building (see Appendix B for the agenda). In particular, thanks are due these team members for giving their ideas and design talents: Norman Pfeiffer, architect and team chair; Jory Johnson, landscape architect; Anders Nereim, interior designer; Garth Rock- castle, architect; Martha Schwartz, landscape architect; and Ralph Schwarz, preservation architect (see Appendix C for team member biographies and list of charrette participants). South Court existing first floor plan. North Summary OF Recommendahons Site Constraints ▼ Instead of just one level, consider the cost/ benefit implications of excavating two basement levels below grade for the library. T To avoid disturbing existing foundations, excavations for a first basement level must begin 15 feet off the north and east walls of the South Court and extend into the ground at no more than a 45 degree angle. Excavations for a second basement level would continue that slope to the north and east and could begin no closer than 1 5 feet to the south and west walls of the court and again extend into the ground at no more than a 45 degree angle (see plan and section diagrams). ▼ Basement passageways to the south and west and certain ductwork and air conditioning equipment to the north and south will remain in the court and must be incorporated into the library and landscape project. Spatial Options T Based on the architectural, landscape and preservation objectives, the South Court project should involve the programmatic, economic and aesthetic analysis of four conceptual volumetric alternatives: A single-level basement scheme A two-level basement scheme A single-level basement scheme plus a major enclosed courtyard pavilion A two-level basement scheme plus a major enclosed court)'ard pavilion Need for Synthesis T The South Court design should s)Tithesize the architecture, landscape and preservation ele- ments into a single, powerful solution. library Guidelines and Concepts T As an early component of the design effort, a programming study needs to be commissioned P^^ Section through South Court looking North. to fully determine present and futxire library needs. T The main Treasury and public entrance to the library should probably be on the first Qoor east facade. Service should be accommodated through a west, basement-level entrance. T Independent of the number of levels and architectural volume of the proposed librar)', each conceptual layout should include six basic elements: 1 . A courtyard entry space off the first floor, east facade access with elevator service and stairs to aU levels of the scheme. 2. A naturally-lit patron space with reading and other essential services as well as the main reference and check-out desk. 3. A space that is a combination of stacks with special study and reference areas. 4. A dense stack area for the bulk of the library collection. 5. A naturally-lit backroom space with offices as weU as technical and support services. 6. Access for the disabled at all levels. T Beyond cost, landscape and aesthetic issues, each conceptual layout for the library also needs to be evaluated in terms of four fundamental criteria: flexibility, future growth, natural fight, and patron responsiveness and comfort. T The library safety egress and mechanical equipment needs have to be clarified prior to soficiting designer qualifications or project proposals. Landscape Considerations T Similar to the case of the librar)', an early component of the design effon should be a programming study to determine the most effective and viable uses of the courtyard. T Alternative concepts for the landscaping should explore a variety of spatial options ranging from a single open area to multiple smaller gardens to multiple levels. ▼ The critique of landscape proposals should include analyses of the court)'ard schemes both with and without people, from the perspectives of both being in the space and looking down on the space, and comments on the impact of seasonal changes. ▼ Since the courtyard can be seen from above, the landscape design should minimize the potential fishbowl quaUty of the garden, whUe providing a pleasant view fi^om above. ▼ Energize the courtyard with activities and ease of access. ▼ These are among the elements that should be considered when developing the landscape scheme for the South Court: Light Color, Texture and Sound Seasonal Change Water Built Objects such as TreUises, Arbors Natural and and Pavifions Artificial Lighting The Balance of Seating Hard versus Soft SkyUghts Landscape Features The Selective Use The Blend of of Large Trees Individual and Group Uses T Whfle more complex landscape elements might be developed in the future, the location of large trees should be established as part of the first phase of the project. Preservation Issues ▼ The trusses of the Office of the Supervising Architect should be preserved and reused as an element in the design of the courtyard. ▼ As a facet of preserving the trusses and the memor)' of the Office of the Supervising .'Archi- tect at the Treasury' Building, the South Court project could ultimately include an exhibit on the work done by that office. T Vistas of the original Mills' facades should be reinforced, and sandstone should be used to replace the granite base that was added to those facades at a later date. The Design Process T A client team should be established to address the Department of the Treasury's interests and expertise with respect to the South Court reha- bilitation. This group should consistently include representatives from these areas: The Library Facilities Management Division Office of the Curator Administrative Operations Division Landscape and Open Space Advocates The National Park Service (responsible for maintaining the courtyard landscaping) T In sohciting and assembling a design team, these disciplines are crucial and should have leadership from people who bring a wealth of relevant experience to the South Court project: Architecture Landscape Architecture Preservation Programming and Research Construction Management T The RFQ or RFP for this effon should be open to proposals from both fully assembled teams and individual designers who the Treasury could later assemble as a team. In addition, the Trea- sury should reserve the right to select pan of a pre-assembled team and combine that with the expertise of other applicants. ▼ Once the design team is in place, a first priority should be to complete the librar)- and lanckcape programming studies referred to earlier in this repon and to investigate existing examples of designs related to the South Court project as input into establishing a project profile and budget. ▼ A second critical priority for the design team should be to develop several alternative propos- als for the court, presenting them in large models as well as drawings, and evaluating each with regard to such criteria as: Library Design Landscaping Preservation Goals Cost Phasing and Construction Options Budget and Phasing T A budget of $100,000 should cover profes- sional fees for the programming and schematic design phases of the South Court rehabilitation. This would not include preparation of construc- tion documents. T Landscaping can cost upwards of S50 per square foot ($840,000 for the South Court) but an interim and still very compelling scheme of paving, grass, gravel and irrigation could be installed for much less money (S 1 70,000 to $200,000 depending on the square footage of planted area). T The commitment should be made to a com- plete South Court design. Then, the project should be phased based on a budget strategy that not only responds to the utilit)' of the program but also makes it likel)' that the entire undertaking will ultimately be implemented. The South Court design should synthesize the architecture, landscape and preservation elements into a single, powerful solution. GiVENSAND Conceptual AuERNAiwES There was never any intention that the charrette team should come up with a single specific design proposal for the South Court project. That level of detail would emerge much later in the process after the designers had been selected and the program had been fully developed. On the other hand, the Department of the Treasur)' did want precise input on defining the physical boundaries of the problem, identrfxing basic alternatives in terms of design elements and architectural volumes, and articulating criteria that could be used to establish priorities for selecting among various project and phasing options. These fundamental concerns are ex- plored under the headings of Site Constraints and Spatial Options. Site Constraints T Instead of just one level, consider the cost/ benefit impUcations of excavating two basement levels below grade for the librar)-. Space is at a premium in the Main Treasur)' Building and a single-level basement Hbrarj' does not appear to leave much, if any, room for normal growth. Of course, as described later, it would be possible to build a "pa\ilion'" in the court)'ard to accommodate future needs, but as an alternative the charrette team also feels Treasur)' officials should evaluate the possibilities of excavating a second basement level. This has significant cost impUcations but still might be a better buy functionally, aesthetically and eco- nomically than having to add above-grade space at a later date. At a minimum, the pros and cons of such an option should be thoughtfully ana- l)zed for, unless it is done as part of this project, there will never be another opportunit)- to gain the extra square footage of a second basement in the South Coun. ▼ To avoid disturbing existing foundations, excavations for a first basement level must begin 15 feet off the north and east walls of the South Court and extend into the ground at no more than a 45 degree angle. Excavations for a second basement le\^el would continue that slope to the north and east and could begin no closer than 15 feet to the south and west walls of the court and again extend into the ground at no more than a 45 degree angle (see plan and section diagrams on pages 3 and 4). Following these engineering guidelines makes it possible to excavate without speci^ing cosd}' underpinning to the existing building. For programming and planning purposes, it also establishes, depending on the depth of each level, the maximum footprint for each of the basements. Finally, it identifies a 15-foot buffer to the north and east where trees could be planted as features of the landscape design without special constructions. ▼ Basement passageways to the south and west and certain ductwork and air conditioning equipment to the north and south will remain in the coun and must be incorporated into the Hbrar)- and landscape project. These spaces and equipment could not be modified or moved except at great expense. Since there is no reason to believe that maintaining these elements would seriously interfere with the viabilit)' and quality of the project, and given a tight budget, the charrette team concurs with Treasury officials that monies are better spent on the library facilities and landscaping. Spatial Options T Based on the architectural, landscape and preservation objectives, the South Court project should involve the programmatic, economic and aesthetic analysis of four conceptual volumetric alternatives: A single-level basement scheme A two-level basement scheme A single-level basement plus a major enclosed courtyard pavilion scheme A two-level basement plus a major enclosed courtyard pavilion scheme The charrette team recommends that the archi- tectural volume of the South Court project be limited to four design options using one or more of three possible floor levels. Taking into account the site limitations mentioned above and wall-to- wall court dimensions of approximately 120 by 140 feet, the three general floor levels and their associated architectural footprint are: Level A: First Basement Below Grade 1 1 ,800 Sq. Ft. Level B: Second Basement Below Grade 7,300 Sq.Ft. Level C: A Major Enclosed 4,000 to Courtyard Pavilion 5,000 Sq.Ft. The four recommended design options are: 1. Level A Only (single-level basement scheme) 1 1,800 Sq.Ft. 2. Level A -•- Level B (two-level basement scheme) 19,100 Sq.Ft. 3. Level A + Level C (single-level basement plus a major enclosed courtyard pavilion scheme) 15,800 to 16,800 Sq.Ft. 4. Level A + Level B + Level C (two-level basement plus a major enclosed courtyard 23, 100 to pavilion scheme) 24,100 Sq.Ft. Option 1: Level A Onty Option 2: level A + Level B XT The charrette team passes on these thoughts regarding the design options: The first scheme is the least expensive but also the least flexible. There is little or no room for Ubrary growth, a fact that ultimately may require the installation of compact shehing. In addition, the programming study may establish that present needs exceed the 11, 800 square feet in Level A. In a building where space constraints are tight, the second scheme offers the benefit of addi- tional square footage. Obviously, the second Option 3: level A + Level C basement must be planned for fi-om the begin- ning, perhaps being justified as a potentially cost- effective way to deal with long-term library growth. The third scheme handles library growth with the construction of an above ground pavilion. This architectural element could be an attractive entrance and reading room but should be carefully studied to complement the preservation and landscape goals of the project, perhaps incorporating the trusses of the Office of the Supervising Architect. The fourth scheme generates the most additional space. If that is valued, then a strateg)' for phas- ing the project would have to be developed to make it possible fi-om an economic and design standpoint. The charrette team also considered the possibili- ties of covering the courtyard as a great atrium and designing a multi-level, above-grade struc- ture in the coun but did not believe these schemes were as compelling as the four options discussed above. Option 4: Level A + Level B + Level C The South Court project should involve the program- matic, economic and aesthetic analysis of four conceptual volumetric solutions. The Solution: A Synthesis of Architecture, Landscape and Preservahon ▼ The South Court design should synthesize the architecture, landscape and preservation ele- ments into a single, powerful solution. As the counterpoint to the general site and schematic guidelines put forth in the preceding section of the report, the charrette team devel- oped more specific recommendations for the architecture, landscape and preservation aspects of the project. They are spelled out under the headings Library Guidelines and Concepts, Landscape Considerations and Preservation Issues. The caveat that accompanies this list, however, is that, while the comments are in three separate categories, the final South Court design must synthesize this diversity of ideas into a single, powerful scheme. The architecture, landscape and preservation elements of the project should inform and enhance one another. It would be a mistake, for instance, to have an architectural or preservation solution for the courtyard and then simply add some landscaping to the space. Ultimately, there should be a richness (this is not sjTionymous with complex) but also a complementary and harmony among the features in the court. Library Guidelines and Concepts ▼ As an early component of the design effort, a programming study needs to be commissioned to fully determine present and future library needs. Treasury staff have gathered some statistics and other information on library materials, use, equipment, space and problems with their quarters on the fifth floor. As an initial step in the design process, however, this data should be confirmed and elaborated upon in a thorough and professional programming study, a docu- ment that would not only detail present needs but also identif)' future trends with respect to growth, technology and user services. ▼ The main Treasury and public entrance to the librar)' should probably be on the first floor east facade. Service should be accommodated through a west, basement-level entrance. This configuration has several advantages. Access to the courtyard already exists through the first floor east facade and, as pan of a main public hallway, could easily be developed into a gracious and clear entry to the library. This path is also very near the Treasur)' Building visitor and appointment entrance. The west basement-level service door makes sense because it is close to a parking and delivery area and, because of its more remote location, avoids potential confusion Ultimatefy there should be a richness (this is not synonymous with complex) but also a complementary and harmony among the features in the court. 10 and overlap among patron and staff uses of the library. One potential drawback to an east facade entr>- to the librar)' is that it could interfere with one of the two original Mills' facades, if not carefully designed. (The other remaining facade is the north wall of the South Court). It should be noted that at the first floor level the Mill's facades have been gready compromised by the granite added at a later date. T Independent of the number of levels and architectural volume of the proposed library, each conceptual layout should include six basic elements: 1 . A courtyard entry space off the first floor, east facade access with elevator service and stairs to all levels of the scheme. 2. A naturally-lit patron space with reading and other essential services as well as the main reference and check-out desk. 3. A space that is a combination of stacks with special study and reference areas. 4. A dense stack area for the bulk of the library collection. 5. A naturally-lit backroom space with offices as well as technical and support services. 6. Access for the disabled at all levels. These are the basic components of the Treasury library and would be part of any scheme be it a single- or multi-level proposal. The charrette team prepared a conceptual layout for the single- basement option but urges that similar layouts be done for each of the volumetric approaches outlined in the "Givens and Conceptual Alterna- tives" section of this report. In every case, com- plete access for the disabled should be thought- fully integrated into the design. As a special note, the team cited the need for natural lighting in the patron and ofiice areas. Such lighting should not simpl)' be light wells that pop up into the garden like the ones in the Smithsonian Quadrangle but should be integrated thoughtfully and creatively into the garden design. T Beyond cost, landscape and aesthetic issues, each conceptual layout for the Ubrar)- also needs to be evaluated in terms of four fundamental criteria: flexibilit)', future growth, natural light, and patron responsiveness and comfort. The precise definitions and elements of these additional librar)' criteria need to be established as part of the programming process. Once they have been articulated, they become important factors in determining the optimum design from among several possible solutions. ▼ The librar)' safet)' egress and mechanical equipment needs have to be clarified prior to soUciting designer qualifications or project proposals. The charrette team feels it is valuable to have definitive information on these two issues because such facts can have an impact on planning and the development of different design concepts. Asymmetrical scheme mth the public entrance at the east facade and open vistas to the two ori^nal Mill's facades. 11 Landscape Considerations ▼ Similar to the case of the library, an early component of the design effort should be a programming study to determine the most effective and viable uses of the courtyard. While the idea of landscaping the South Court is excellent, at this point, there is not enough data on how the court will be used to generate a good schematic plan. Before design begins, research needs to be completed on a program for the space. Will the court be used for chatting and casual meetings? Will it be used for lunch and coffee breaks? Will it be largely a visual amenity? Will the snack bar be in the court or in the building? Will it be used for tours and formal recepdons? Will it contain an exhibit? How many people will use it? Who will maintain it and what resources will be devoted to upkeep? What should be the interrelation between the landscaped court and the library? These are just a few of the questions that have to be answered before design can begin. A thoughtful program- ming effort will gather this kind of input, infor- mation essential to ending up with a project that really works rather than simply looks good on paper. The A/E should be involved in this study. ▼ Alternative concepts for the landscaping should explore a variety of spatial options ranging from a single open area to multiple smaller gardens to multiple levels. To a significant degree, the courtyard landscaping is dependent on the design of the library and the links that might be created among the library, the garden and the existing facades. On the other hand, the sociology of the open space itself must also be taken into consid- eration. Would the court work best if it is per- ceived as one large area or would people feel more comfortable in a collection of more inti- mate spaces? In either approach, the use of different levels needs to be reviewed. A final design will emerge from the creative overlap of building, landscape and preservation criteria, but within that context a full spectrum of schemes should be investigated. ▼ The critique of landscape proposals should include analyses of the courtyard schemes both with and without people, from the perspectives of both being in the space and looking down on the space, and comments on the impact of seasonal changes. The courtyard garden will serve many functions. It will be an entry for the library. It will be a place to walk through and sit in. It will also be a place to look at and look down on from the surrounding offices and meeting rooms. Obvi- ously, too, its character will shift season to season. A final design should be selected and implemented only after these several points of view have been carefially studied. ▼ Since the courtyard can be seen from above, the landscape design should minimize the potential fishbowl quality of the garden, while providing a pleasant view from above. The challenge here will be to open up vistas to the historic facades, particularly those de- signed by Mills and, at the same time, establish a sense of place in the court where people do not think they are on display. Although not limited to these ideas, the charrette team befieves the following strategies can help reduce any Fishbowl effect and refieve the ominous effect of the massive vertical walls: create spaces that have an overhead landscape (e.g., a canopy of trees) or construct an arbor or trellis; devise a design that estabfishes a sense of being in an outdoor room or rooms; blend tall and low^ plant material; avoid landscaping that is directly aligned with windows; and use furniture that may be moved from one spot in the court to another. 19 Alternate concepts for the landscaping should explore a \ariety of spatial options ranging from a single open area to multiple smaller gardens to multiple levels. Symmetrical scheme with center paxihon and terrace. ▼ Energize the courtyard with activities and ease of access. Unless it w^ere decided that the court should only be seen, making certain that it "works" — that it attracts and is used by people — has to be a top landscape design priority. The program- ming study will be essential in distilling how to best reach this goal. In addition, or maybe simply reiterating the conclusions of that research, moving the snack bar from the basement into or adjacent to the courtyard and having entries to the garden from more than one side should be facets of the plan to assure the vitality of the open space. T These are among the elements that should be considered when developing the landscape scheme for the South Court; Light Sound Color, Texture and Seasonal Change Water Natural and Artificial Lighting Seating Built Objects such as Trellises, Arbors and Pavilions The Balance of Hard versus Soft Skylights Landscape Features The Selective Use of Large Trees The Blend of Individual and Group Uses This litany is offered not as a checklist but as a way of suggesting the rich palate of landscape options that should be considered for the South Court. The ultimate design need not use a lot of materials but a variet)' of alternatives should be explored. Light and sound are mentioned because they are especially important in this situation. The taD facades surrounding the court may leave the space in shadow much of the year. After careful study, plant and landscape materials can be selected that will not only survive in this environment but also enliven the court with color and light. Sound is also a significant issue because of the air conditioner noise that fills the courtyard during the summer. This should be overcome with the introduction of elements that add "white noise" — chimes, the rusde of leaves and even small fountains. T While more complex landscape elements might be developed in the future, the location of large trees should be established as part of the first phase of the project. To assure proper growlJi, trees planted above the library building require broad soil wells three to six feet deep. Planning for these trees, even if they are put in at a later date, is essential since it would be too cosdy to design the entire library roof to accommodate trees and it would be impossible to put them in after the fact without soil wells Qarge containers can be used for trees but the charrette team does not feel this is a viable alternative to committing to this aspect of the landscape design in advance). Such planning might also permit using the tower crane to install the trees during the first phase of the South Court rehabilitation. Preservation Issues ▼ The tmsses of the Office of the Supervising Architect should be preserved and reused as an element in the design of the courtyard. The charrette team feels that the "portable" structure built to house the Supervising Architect's drafting room was a significant place since it was here that so many major federal buildings were designed. To maintain the memory of that edifice and the many contribu- tions to American architecture associated with it, the recommendation is to preserve its distinctive trusses for reuse in the courtyard design. The team does not have a particular reuse in mind. All or only a portion of the trusses could be reinstalled. They could maintain their existing configuration or be put together to create a different form. They could be supported on new columns and they might remain in their present location or be moved to another spot in the court. A portion of the trussed area could be glazed and used as part of the entr)' or court)'ard level library pavilion or exhibit space. The trusses could become a garden trellis or they might simply be considered a sculpture and reminder of this important part of the history of the Department of the Treasury. Finally, less they be lost or destroyed, the team feels the trusses should be dismanded and remain in the courtyard until they are re-erected as part of the new garden. ▼ As a facet of preserving the trusses and the memory of the Office of the Supervising Archi- tect at the Treasury Building, the South Coun project could ultimately include an exhibit on the work done by that office. As already mentioned, buildings designed by Office of the Supervising Architect are among America's masterworks and, in many cases, are landmarks in the urban fabric. This exhibit would recall the heritage of these structures, describe how the Supervising Architect's office worked, summarize its history, and cite the names and accomplishments of the numerous talented people employed by this division of the Treasury. An added feature of the exhibit might be the re-creation of panels that separated desks in the drafting room for use as surfaces to mount displays. ▼ Vistas of the original Mills' facades should be reinforced, and sandstone should be used to replace the granite base that was added to those facades at a later date. The Mills' facades are one of the most attractive features of the Main Treasury Building and the South Court is the only location where it is possible to get a complete sense of their beauty, scale and detail. Enhancing the view towards this part of the building creates a stron- ger sense of place, helps orient employees and visitors alike, and highlights the history and development of the Treasury structure. In this context, the granite base of the Mills' facades should be replaced with sandstone since that was the material originally used in their construc- tion. The removal of the granite base will also provide an opportunity to stud)' this level of the original Mills' facades, establishing original openings and possibly another earlier access to the courtyard. ^z. The trvtsses of the Office of the Supervising Architect should be preserved and reused as an element in the design of the courtyard. 14 The Design Process Circa 1860 staircase in South Wmg with oak ka\es and oli\e branches railing. A skillfully orchestrated process is essential to achie\ing qualit)' design results. In this arena, the charrene team proposes several guidelines that it feels should be integrated with the traditional federal approach to project de\'elopment. T A client team should be established to address the Department of the Treasury's interests and expertise with respect to the South Court reha- bilitation. This group should consistendy include representatives from these areas: The librar)- Facilities Management Division Office of the Curator Administrati\"e Operations Division Landscape and Open Space Advocates The National Park Service (responsible for maintaining the court\:ard landscaping) Outstanding design is the result of effective coUaboration between good and knowledgeable clients and talented designers. .-\s the counterpart to the design team, then, the Department of the Treasur)- needs to create a client team that can work with and inform the decision making of the designers in a dialogue that is open-minded, creative and respectful of the building. T In soliciting and assembling a design team. these disciplines are crucial and should have leadership from people wiio bring a wealth of relevant experience to the South Court project: Architecture Landscape .Architecture Presen"ation Programming and Research Construction Management Given the nature of this undertaking, it is self- explanaior)' why most of these professions are included on the design team. Two, however, merit brief comment. Programming and research specialists are noted because much needs to be done in this area to focus and clariR' the design goals. These people need to be chosen and work with the designers. They will also seek extensive input from the client team and Treasurv- person- nel. The construction manager is important because, given the economic constraints affecting the court)'ard rehabilitation, this person can help identif)- the costs and the most efficient way of phasing the project. 15 ▼ The RFQ or RFP for this effon should be open to proposals from both fully assembled teams and individual designers who the Treasury could later assemble as a team. In addition, the Trea- sury should reserve the right to select part of a pre-assembled team and combine that with the expertise of other applicants. The charrette team feels that this approach will enable the Treasury to hire the best possible talent. The perennial caveat, of course, is to make sure team members can establish effective communications and that their mutual goal is to create a design that truly integrates architecture, landscape and presenation rather than have one of those elements dominate or overwhelm the others. The landscape architect must be an equal parmer with the architect in developing an appropriate design. To help with the selection process, a related suggestion is to engage outside professionals or the Design Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts to help review responses and assemble the optimum design team. T Once the design team is in place, a first priority should be to complete the library and landscape programming studies referred to earlier in this report and to investigate existing examples of designs related to the South Court project as input into establishing a project profile and budget. While general goals have been established, many programmatic details have yet to be resolved. Further, a professionally-led study will gather the facts needed to assure the quality, vitality and long-term utility' of this important design effon. A facet of this research should be to analyze places that already exist for lessons relevant to the architecture, landscape and preservation objectives of this project. All this data can contribute to establishing the profile of this project and the resources needed to com- plete it. T A second critical priority for the design team should be to develop several alternative propos- als for the court, presenting them in large models as well as drawings, and evaluating each with regard to such criteria as: Librar)' Design Landscaping Preservation Goals Cost Phasing and Construction Options The charrette team urges the Treasury' to con- sider several possible design solutions before committing itself to one approach. Full-scale mock-ups of important elements of the design, such as the library entrance pavilion and trusses, should be erected in the space to determine their appropriateness. The South Coun rehabilitation is a significant endeavor, one that — like the restoration of interior spaces in the Main Trea- sury- Building — can become a model for others with similar challenges. This open space can be one of Washington's special places, a blending of function, history' and beauty. In this light, the resources devoted to the early and thorough exploration of alternatives can simply be inter- preted as a wise long-term investment. 16 Comments on the Budget and Phasing the Project The commitment should he made to a complete South Court design. Then, the project should be phased based on a budget strategy that not only responds to the utility of the program but also makes it likely that the entire undertaking will ultimately be implemented. Without a specific design and the proper exper- tise, the charrette team feels it is impossible, professionally unwise, and a disservice to the Treasury to make detailed comments concerning the budget. It does offer several insights to help with the planning related to this important issue and reiterates the necessity to hire a construction manager to determine the appropriate project phasing and help get the most value for the dollars available. T A budget of $100,000 should cover profes- sional fees for the programming and schematic design phases of the South Coun rehabilitation. This would not include preparation of construc- tion documents. Although by government standards, this cost is above average, it can be justified because of the unique nature of the South Court project. In addition, as mentioned in the previous section of this repon, the professional expenses during the early stages of this endeavor are being used to assure the long-term viabifity and quality of this important federal undertaking. Perhaps certain components of the budget can be aug- mented from private sources because of the significance of this effort. T Landscaping can cost upwards of $50 per square foot ($840,000 for the South Court) but an interim and still very compelling scheme of paving, grass, gravel and irrigation could be installed for much less money ($170,000 to $200,000 depending on the square footage of planted area). Landscaping, done well, is not inexpensive. To reduce costs, what the charrette team recom- mends is to develop a long-term proposal, select a few key elements (perhaps large trees, basic drainage and irrigation) that might be installed during the first phase of the project, and then put a compelling but less extravagant interim design in place, implementing the final design at a later date. ▼ The commitment should be made to a com- plete South Court design. Then, the project should be phased based on a budget strategy that not only responds to the utifit)' of the program but also makes it likely that the entire undertaking will ultimately be implemented. There is no doubt that the $1 miUion plus- or-minus-budget is inadequate to fulfill all the programmatic objectives of the South Court rehabifitation. The Treasury's own faciUties group estimates the cost to excavate and con- struct a single-level basement shell to be approxi- mately $500,000. Another $100,000 is needed to remove the structure of the Office of the Supervising Architect. (It would be more expen- sive to save and restore the trusses). Design fees will be more than $100,000; basic landscaping will cost in the range of $200,000; and a scheme that calls for more than one level, as well as items not included here, will add further pres- sure to the budget. In this situation, the charrette team believes the strategy should be twofold. First, the Trea- sury should select the optimum, long-term design for the South Court. Next, within the maximum allotted budget, it should implement, as the first phase of that project, those compo- nents of the design that simultaneously create a functional and attractive space and make the fuU implementation of the final design as feasible and as inevitable as possible with both additional and year-to-year facilities funding. 17 Appendix A: Historical Background History of the Treasury Building In the first years of the American republic's existence, the government was quartered in Philadelphia until the new capital dty as autho- rized in the Constitution was built on the banks of the Potomac River. In 1800, the government moved to Washington DC, and the Department of the Treasury moved into a porticoed Georgian- st)'le building designed by an English architect, George Hadfield. This structure was burned by die British in 1814, but was rebuilt by White House architect James Hoban. This building was identical to three others located on lots adjacent to the White House, each housing one of the four original departments of the U.S. Govern- ment: State, War, Navy and Treasury. The Treasury Building, to the southeast of the White House, was burned b)' arsonists in 1833 with only the fireproof wing left standing. The present Treasury Building is a magnifi- cent granite structure in the Greek Revival style; it was built over a period of 33 years between 1836 and 1869. The east and center wings, designed by Robert Mills, architect of the Wash- ington Monument and the Patent Office Build- ing, comprise the first pan of the building constructed from 1836 to 1842. The most architecturaUy impressive feature of the Mills design is the east fi-ont colonnade running the length of the building. Each of the 30 columns is 36 feet tall and was carved out of a single block of granite. The interior design of the east and center wings is classically austere, in keeping with the Greek Revival Style. Later additions were made to the original wings, beginning with the construction of the south wing from 1855 to 1860 and the west wing from 1855 to 1864. The preliminary design of the wings was provided b)' Thomas Ustick Walter, architect of the dome of the U.S. Capitol, but architects Ammi B. Young and Isaiah Rogers refined the plans, designed the interior details, and supervised construction. While the exterior of the building was executed along the lines of the original Mills wings, the interiors of the later wings reflect changes in both building technol- ogy and aesthetic tastes. Iron columns and beams reinforced the building's brick vaults; North wing designed by Alfred B. Mullett and built from 1867-1869. 18 Recentfy restored office of Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury; 1861-1864. the architectural detailing became much more ornate, foUowing mid- 19th centur)' fashion. The final addition to the Treasury' Building was the north wing, built fi-om 1867 to 1869. Its architect was Alfred B. Mullett, who subse- quendy designed the State, War, and Navy Buildings (now the Old Executive Office Build- ing) on the other side of the White House. Similar in construction and decor to the south and west wings, the north wing is unique as the site of the Cash Room — a t>^o-stor>' marble hall in which the daily financial business of the U.S., Government could be transacted. The room was opened in 1869 as the site of President Ulysses S. Grant's Inaugural Reception. The Treasury Building is the third oldest federal building after the White House and the Capitol in Washington, DC. It is the oldest federal department building and has had a great impact on the design of other government buildings. At the time of its completion, it v\as one of the largest office buildings in the world. It served as a barrack for soldiers during the Ci\il War and as the temporary- "White House" for President Andrew Johnson following the assassi- nation of President Lincoln in 1865. The Trea- sur)' Building is unquestionably a monument of continuing architectural and historic significance. In 1972 the Treasur}' Building was desig- nated a National Historic Landmark in recogni- tion of its architectural and historical significance and a program for restoration of the building and its collection was begun a litde over a decade later. In order to generate the necessary funding for the restoration projects, the Committee for the Preservation of the Treasur)- Building was established. Today. pubUc spaces such as the Cash Room, corridors and lobbies, have been restored and reflect the building's original 19th century design. With the 200th armiversary of the Treasur)' Department, restoration of private office spaces was undertaken, illustrating specific historic events of the Department's past and depicting the finest decorative st)ies of the period. These rooms are the Andrew Johnson Suite and the Salmon Chase Suite. The Chase Suite is historically important because it was the office of one of the most notable Secretaries of the Treasury', where financ- ing the Civil War was negotiated and imple- mented. Original highly decorated painting and ceiling murals have been exposed in this suite. The Andrew Johnson Suite, in addition to being decorated by the prestigious New York cabtnetmaldng firm Pottier & St)'mus, also served as the President's office in 1865. 19 Tlie Office of the Supervising Architect One of the important historical responsibilities of the United States Treasury Department was directing and managing the Office of the Super- vising Architect. This office was established in 1852 in response to the design needs of an expanding nation. The Office of the Supervising Architect had sole responsibility for the design and construction of all federal buildings — courthouses, post offices, mints, marine hospi- tals and custom houses. Because the Supervising Architect's office had outgrown its original space within the Main Treasury Building, an independent structure was erected in the South Court of the Treasury Building in 1891 to house the Office of the Supervising Architect. The structure would provide drafting space for as many as 160 employees to design what eventually would total over several hundred federal buildings during its tenure with Treasury. The most revolutionary- feature of this structure was that it was intended as a "portable" building. The design of the building was a rectangular shape with two enormous peaked roofs. The materials of the structure called for the innovative use of steel and glass, with solid panels of glass on the northern sides of the peaked roofe to allow daylight directly onto the drafting tables. At the height of its operation, the Office of the Supervis- ing Architect was responsible for the largest single operation of architects anywhere in the world. The varied skills and expertise required for designing a building were unified under one roof This was the first "firm" of this size in the world. Commissions included the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia; U.S. Mint in Denver, Colorado; Post Office in Pueblo, Colorado; Post Office in Buffalo, New York; and Custom House, New London, Connecticut. The Supervising Architect's building was designed by James Windrim, then the Supervis- ing Architect. Windrim was undoubtedly in- spired by the steel and glass constructions of the 1853 Crystal Palace in London, England, and the structures at the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. The Office of the Supervising Architect was phased into the PubUc Buildings Administration in 1939 and Treasury ceased its responsibility for federal architectural design at that time. After the Supervising Architect's Office moved to the fifth floor of the Main Treasury Building in 1910, the structure was occupied by the Counting Division of the National Bank and Redemption Agency of Treasury and by 1 944 the structure was used as an employee cafeteria. At that time, the interior was altered dramatically with the installation of a drop ceiling that hid the truss construction from view. The cafeteria functions were transferred to the Treasury Annex in 1990 and the Supervising Architect's structure has stood unoccupied since that time. The Office of the Supervising Architect had sole responsibility for the design and construction of all federal buildings - courthouses, post offices, mints, marine hospitals and custom houses. 20 Appendix B: The Charrette Agenda Tuesday, July 28, 1992 8:30 am Continental Breakfast Room 4125, Main Treasury 9:00 am Welcome by David M. Nummy, Assistant Secretar)' for Management 9:05 am Overview Slide Show "Treasury, a National Historic Landmark" Jane L. G. Barton Chief Curator and Preservation Officer 9:20 am Project Overview - "Charrette Objectives" John D. Robinson, Director Facilities Management Division 9:30 am Hard Hat Tour John D. Robinson and Pedro A. Porro, AIA 10:30 am Wrap-up of Tour /Questions Pedro A. Porro, ALA Manager of Planning & Projections Facilities Management Division 10:45 am Overview of Library Collection and Services Susan Perella, Assistant Director Library and Information Services 11:00 am Break 11:15 am Design Team Discussion of Site Visit Briefings Outline Charrette Format 12:15 pm Lunch, Cafeteria, Treasur)' Annex Building 1:00 pm Charrette 6:00 pm Reception and Tour of Treasury restored spaces 7:00 pm Dinner Wednesday , July 29, 1992 8:30 am Continental Breakfast, Room 4125, Main Treasury Building 9:00 am Charrette 12:00 noon Report and Closing Remarks 1:00 pm Adjourn Appendix C: Charrette Team Members Norman Pfeiffer Los Angeles, California (Charrette Chair) Mr. Pfeiffer is a founding principal and partner in Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, one the nation's foremost architecture offices, recognized for its new designs and sensitive adaptations of existing structures. In 1981 the firm received AlA's Architectural Firm Award. Mr. Pfeiffer is currendy directing the rehabilitation and East Wing Addition to the Los Angeles Central Library, the restoration of Memorial Church at Stanford University', renovation of the Language Comer Building and adaptive reuse of the Cooksey House, Stanford, CA. His previous projects include the American Film Institute West Coast Campus Development in Los Ange- les, Alaska Center for the Performing Arts in Anchorage, Boettcher Concert Hall in Denver, and the Seatde Public Library, Downtown Facility Planning and Programming Study in Seatde. Mr. Pfeiffer is a frequent contributor to discussions on issues of architecture and urban- ism, including the "Critics and Cranes" Sympo- sium featuring newsmakers in the design of downtown Los Angeles. He received a Bachelor of Architecture from the Universit)' of Washing- ton and Master of Architecture from Columbia University. Joiy Johnson Urbana, Illinois Mr. Johnson is an assistant professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Illinois and a private consultant. His landscape architecture projects include Gateway Park North and Crystal Water Park in Arlington, VA; finalist in the Agronomics Build- ing Public art Project in Raleigh, NC; and first place winner in the Criminal Courts Plaza Competition in Charlotte, NC. Mr. Johnson is the award-winning author of Modem Landscape Architecture: Redefining the Garden and has been a contributing editor for Landscape Architecture since 1988. His 1992 contributions to the magazine include "The Sky's the limit," "A Common-Sense Designer," and "Formal Objects Public Vision." He is the recipient of the Ameri- can Society of Landscape Architects' Bradford WilUams Medal. Mr. Johnson received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Trinity College and a Master of Landscape Architecture from the Harvard University' Graduate School of Design. Anders Nereim Chicago, Illinois Mr. Nereim is a practicing architect and an associate professor of interior design at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. His work has won numerous awards from both the American Institute of Architects and the American Wood Council, including the young Architect Aw^rd from the Chicago Chapter of the AIA. Mr. Nereim 's paintings and drawings are included in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the Deutsches Architektur Museum and the Chemical Bank of New York. He is curtendy working on the book, Looking Into Form, funded under a grant bom the Gra- ham Foundation. His writings have appeared in such publications as Architectural Record, 22 The landscape architect must he an equal partner with the architect in developing an appropriate design. Progressive Architecture, Architecture, Inland Architect, Skyline and the Journal oj Architectural Education. Mr. Nereim is a past member of the Board of Directors of the Chicago Chapter of the AIA and is presendy a member of the AIA's National Committee on Design. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from the University of Chicago and Bachelor of Architec- ture from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Garth Rockcastle Minneapolis, Minnesota Mr. Rockcasde is principal in the firm of Meyer Scherer & Rockcasde, Ltd., and head of the Department of Architecture at the University of Minnesota. His recent commissions include the Sahara West Library and Art Museum, Las Vegas; renovation and addition to the University of Minnesota Dance Facility and General Mills Recognition Court, Minneapolis; Carmelite Monastery, Lake Elmo, MN; and Riverfront Museum Park, Rockford, IL. Mr. Rockcasde serves as chafr of the Board of Dfrectors of Concourse for Contemporary Art and has served on the Board of Directors for Artspace Projects, Inc., and the Downtown CouncU of Minneapolis. The founding editor of Midgard, he is also author of numerous reviews and articles for publications such as Architectural Record, Progressive Architec- ture, Inforin, Inland Architect and Arcliitecfure. Mr. Rockcasde received a Bachelor of Architec- ture from Pennsylvania State University and a Master of Urban Design from Cornell University. Martha Schwartz San Francisco, California Ms. Schwartz is principal of Martha Schwartz, Inc. and adjunct professor of Landscape at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. She is known for using objects not normally associated with gardens and incorporating them with traditional garden forms. Recent commis- sions include the Los Angeles Center; "Turf Parterre" for the World Financial Center, Battery Park, New York; "Limed Parterre with Skywrit- ing," Radcliffe College, Cambridge, MA; along with the winning design competition entries for Marina Linear Park in San Diego and Todos Santos Plaza in Concord, CA. Ms. Schwartz is a frequent lecturer and design critic and recendy authored Praxis Geographie. She has won numer- ous awards from the American Societ)' of Land- scape Architects and was a resident at the American Academy in Rome. Ms. Schwartz received her Bachelor of Fine Arts and Master of Landscape Architecture from the University of Michigan along with completijig the Landscape Architecture Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Ralph G. Schwarz Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Mr. Schwarz is director of Historic Bethlehem, Inc. and president of the Moravian Archives. He has served as special planning representative for Bethlehem Steel Corporation, president of the AIA Urban Design and Development Corpora- tion, and president of Historic New Harmony, Inc. Mr. Schwarz was a partner with Richard Meier & Partners, Architects. He has been responsible for planning, schematic design and development of such major buildings as The Ford Foundation, New York City; The Atheneum in New Harmony, IN; the J. Paul Getty Fine Arts Center, Los Angeles, CA; the People s Bank headquarters, Bridgepon, CT; and A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York City. Mr. Schwarz received a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and international relations and a master's degree in histor)' from Lehigh University', and a Doctor of Humanities from Indiana State University. Appendix C: List of Participants National Endowment for the Arts Participants Mina Benyman, Director Design Arts Program Thomas Grooms, Program Manager Federal Design Improvement, Design Arts Program Thomas Walton, Rapporteur/Consultant Professor of Architecture, Catholic University of America Department of the Treasury Participants Jane L. G. Barton, Chief Curator and Preservation Officer Curatorial and Preservation Office Pedro A. Porro, AIA, Manager of Planning and Projects Facilities Management Division John D. Robinson, Director Facilities Management Division Deborah M. Witchey Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration Department of the Treasury Observers Antonio Diez, Architect, Project Management and Space Planning Facilities Division Gary T. Engelstad, Director Administrative Operations Division Karen Mclntire Preservation and Conservation Office Paula Mohr, Curatorial Assistant Preservation and Conservation Office David M. Nummy Assistant Secretary for Management Susan B. Perella, Assistant Director Library and Information Services 24