James V. Forrestal Building

The first building proposed for the site was the Smithsonian Institution's National Air Museum. The museum, which was chartered in 1946, needed a new structure to house its rapidly expanding collection of aircraft and missiles. The National Air Museum Advisory Board, established to advise the Smithsonian about the operation of the new museum, recommended in 1953 that the new museum be located on Independence Avenue between 9th and 12th Streets SW. In June 1954, the Smithsonian sought the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission.[2]

William Zeckendorf in 1952.

However, a major redevelopment of much of Southwestern D.C. conflicted with the Smithsonian proposal. At the time, Southwest D.C. was mostly a slum which suffered from high concentrations of old and poorly maintained buildings, overcrowding, and threats to public health (such as lack of running indoor water, sewage systems, electricity, central heating, and indoor toilets).[3] In 1946, the United States Congress passed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act, which established the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA) and provided legal authority to clear land as well as funds to spur redevelopment in the capital.[4] Congress also gave the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) the authority to designate which land would be redeveloped, and how.[5] Wholesale razing of hundreds of acres of land in Southwest D.C. was contemplated. As early as 1952, there were already several proposals to transform 10th Street SW. These included constructing an esplanade above 10th Street SW,[6] creating a traffic circle at the intersection of 10th Street and Independence Avenue SW,[7] and using 10th Street as a major thoroughfare for traffic coming off the 14th Street Bridge.[8] Some of these proposals had won the tentative support of the NCPC.[9] In February 1954, New York City developer William Zeckendorf proposed the creation of "L'Enfant Plaza" — a major development consisting of five office buildings, a cultural center, and a shopping mall. Zeckendorf's plan would replace 10th Street SW with a 400-foot (120 m) wide, grass-lined pedestrian mall.[10] The NCPC subsequently approved nearly all of Zeckendorf's proposal in April 1955, including the 10th Street mall.[11]

Conflict between the Smithsonian and Zeckendorf plans came to a head in late 1955. The Smithsonian had approached Zeckendorf in February 1954 and proposed that their airplane museum become the "cultural center" envisioned by the redevelopment plan.[12] But nothing came of this proposal. In September 1954, the NCPC came close to reversing itself and approving the Smithsonian plan. But John Remon, chairman of the RLA, strenuously objected.[12] In February 1955, the NCPC tentatively approved the area on the south side of Independence Avenue SW between 9th and 12th Streets for the Air Museum. But it reversed itself in April, and said 10th Street SW would go through all the way to Independence Avenue.[13] The approval of first one plan and then another created great controversy. The NCPC formally suspended its decision-making process in late November[14] because of the Smithsonian's desire to build along Independence Avenue.[15] At issue was a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Zeckendorf and the RLA in 1954. The MOU stated that 10th Street would be used as an esplanade[16] — a use which would be denied if 10th Street were blocked off at its northern end by a large museum building.

The impasse was broken by a third party. During World War I, an office building named the Munitions Building was built on the north side of the National Mall between 19th and 21st Streets NW. Designed to be temporary, it had never been torn down. A second, nearly identical temporary building, the Main Navy Building, was constructed east of it in 1941. Attempts to have the "tempos" demolished were made over the years, but these efforts had little effect. In March 1954, however, legislation was introduced in Congress to fund the demolition.[17] But there was no place to house the displaced defense workers. Attention turned to the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal agency which owns most U.S. government buildings. GSA worried that spending federal funds for construction immediately would worsen inflation (which was running high at the time). The agency said it preferred to purchase land and pay for the construction of new federal buildings to house these workers through the use of federal "lease-purchase" legislation.[18] This World War II-era statute allowed the GSA to lease land and permit a private developer to construct a building. GSA would provide financial guarantees to enable the developer to obtain financing for the building's construction, as well as agree to a long-term lease of the structure. Lease-purchase gave GSA the option of buying the land and building at the end of 20 or 30 years, with its lease payments being put toward the cost of the structure. Although the lease-purchase legislation did not specifically include the District, GSA thought it could be interpreted that way.

GSA was not completely convinced of the need for new federal construction at first. However, in November 1954 the agency released a new study which showed that the cost of maintaining the "tempos" compared unfavorably with the cost of new construction.[19] Five months later, GSA proposed that several new federal office buildings be constructed in Washington, D.C., including one or more buildings along 10th Street SW.[18] In June 1955, GSA announced it would definitely build a six-story, $20.2 million federal office building somewhere within the Southwest D.C. redevelopment area.[20]

GSA's decision did not necessarily mean that a federal building would be built at the north end of 10th Street NW. In fact, the dispute between the Smithsonian and Zeckendorf over the Air Museum had still not been resolved by June 1955.[13] But the General Services Administration had more political influence in Congress than either of them.

James V. Forrestal, for whom the Forrestal Building is named.

GSA moved ahead with its plans. In 1955, Congress authorized a GSA proposal to construct nine new federal buildings, including one in Southwest D.C.[21] Congress also enacted a lease-purchase statute which applied only to the District of Columbia. The act required congressional approval of the building requirements and architectural design, and an open bidding process.[22] In July 1956, the House of Representatives appropriated $40.9 million for a federal building on Independence Avenue SW between 6th and 9th Streets, and $25.2 million for three small office buildings to border the 10th Street SW esplanade. All the buildings would be financed under new lease-purchase legislation.[23]

But pressure was also building in Congress to end the lease-purchase program. In large measure, this was because Congress wanted more control over the placement and design of federal buildings. The RLA agreed in January 1957 to expedite the construction of any federal buildings in the redevelopment area.[24] But because of the uncertainty about the lease-purchase legislation, GSA deferred construction of any building in February 1957.[25] In March, the House of Representatives voted to end the lease-purchase program, and provided authorization for GSA to purchase outright any land or buildings it needed. But the House also put an immediate moratorium on new federal construction in the city.[26] Among the structures suddenly in limbo were:[26]

• Federal Office Building No. 6 at 400 Maryland Avenue SW. (It eventually opened in 1961 and was originally the headquarters of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In 1979, it became the headquarters of the United States Department of Education.)[24]
• Federal Office Building No. 8 at 200 C Street SW. (It eventually opened in 1965, and originally housed laboratories of the United States Food and Drug Administration. The agency moved to new, larger headquarters in Maryland in 2001, and in 2010 a $73 million project began to gut the structure and radically renovate the interior and exterior for occupancy by members of Congress and some smaller units of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.)[27][28]
• Federal Office Building Number 9 at 1900 E Street NW. (It began construction in 1962. It is now known as the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building and is home to the United States Office of Personnel Management).[29]
• Federal Office Building Number 10 at 7th Street SW and Independence Avenue SW. (It was constructed in 1963 as two separate structures, rather than a single structure that would block 7th Street SW. 800 Independence Avenue SW houses the Federal Aviation Administration. 676 Independence Avenue SW originally housed two units of NASA, but today also contains offices of the Federal Aviation Administration.)[30]

Members of Congress justified the moratorium on the grounds that the economy in the District of Columbia did not need any economic stimulus.[26] Despite these problems, GSA in 1957 selected the 10th Street and Independence Avenue SW site for the construction of Federal Office Building 5. Although other sites were considered, the kind and number of defense employees to be housed in the building, these workers' impact on traffic flow in and around the city, and other factors led GSA to choose this site.[31]

GSA intended for the United States Navy to occupy the new building, but this caused issues as well. The Navy (like all non-Cabinet agencies) was barred by the President from leasing or building a headquarters closer than 25 miles (40 km) from the center of Washington, D.C.[32] Nevertheless, certain civic leaders wanted President Dwight Eisenhower to allow the Navy to remain in the city limits. These individuals advocated the construction of a major new federal office complex, to be known as Federal City Center, in an area bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue NW, E Street NW, 8th Street NW, and 11th Street NW (an area that now encompasses 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue and the J. Edgar Hoover Building). Although GSA did not necessarily agree that the Navy should occupy Federal City Center, it did say in August 1959 that most Navy offices be combined into a single, unspecified headquarters — which it called "the little Pentagon".[33] For its part, the Navy dutifully began seeking office space outside the 25-mile (40 km) limit. Its preference was an office complex near the Capital Beltway in Fairfax County, Virginia.[34]

In 1958 and 1959, most of the obstacles to the construction of Federal Office Building 5 were removed. Congress enacted legislation in 1958 authorizing the construction of the museum on the north side of Independence Avenue between 4th and 7th Streets SW.[35] In 1959, when Congress passed legislation authorizing the construction of GSA's "Little Pentagon" project, removing the distance limitation. Funds for the construction were appropriated in 1960.[24] The exact location of the structure was still unclear, but GSA wanted it built on Independence Avenue. The construction of such a large complex was not considered to be a problem. Congress and GSA believed that a large building helped to create a "dramatic northern boundary" for the redevelopment area.[36] There was still some doubt as to which tenants would occupy the "Little Pentagon". There was some indication that Federal Office Building 10 would house the "Little Pentagon". But in January 1961, GSA allocated Federal Office Building 10 to the Federal Aviation Administration and said it would build the "Little Pentagon" elsewhere in Southwest.[37]

In January 1961, GSA asked Congress to authorize construction of the "Little Pentagon" at 10th and Independence.[38] The United States Department of Defense intended to put 7,000 Air Force and Army personnel in the structure, and GSA told Congress that a call for architectural bids would be issued in July.[39] GSA head John L. Moore said the agency was open to a Modernist architectural design, and that the building should be ready for occupancy within five years.[40] In June, GSA said the "Little Pentagon" would be built on just 9.6 acres (39,000 m²) of land. The total budget was $42 million, of which $3.8 million would be spent on land and $2 million on fallout shelters.[41] The number of workers in the building, pegged at 7,000 in May, had now risen to 7,500.[42] A major change in the structure's purpose came in July 1961 when GSA said that the U.S. Navy would instead occupy the building, which now was set to have 1 million square feet (93,000 m²) of office space.[43]

The North Building's span across 10th Street SW.

Design issues now held up the project.

The first involved the physical design of the building. Numerous plans in the last several years had called for two buildings, one on either side of 10th Street SW. Two or more levels of office space would connect them underground.[49] But the Navy strongly disliked this plan, and demanded that the structure arch over the street.[50] The purpose of the span was to improve employee circulation.[27] The architectural team also favored this plan. Its first proposal was a block-long, 10-story building pierced by a 35-foot (11 m) high space at ground level to permit 10th Street SW to pass through it. Two low, symmetrical wings extended toward the Landover Subdivision railroad tracks in the south. GSA immediately approved the architects' proposal.[45]

Neither the NCPC nor the United States Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) opposed this plan.[51] The CFA reviews and provides advice on "matters of design and aesthetics" involving federal projects and planning in Washington, D.C. The first design was presented to the CFA on December 6, 1961.[52] For the CFA, the issue was not the span over 10th Street but rather whether the façade was in "harmony with the character of Washington as the Nation's Capital."[53] Indeed, the CFA applauded the design, believing it would help frame the Mall and preserve the line of sight along Independence Avenue (which it considered more important).[53] The CFA also felt the span would help create a gateway to L'Enfant Plaza. It claimed there would be a "dramatic effect of passing through the arch and suddenly seeing a new vista open up."[54] The proposed design was presented to the NCPC on December 6, 1961.[45] The agency approved the plan on March 1, 1962, but suggested that the design team coordinate with the RLA.[55] Perhaps fearing public outcry, both the NCPC and CFA pushed the project through their respective approval processes with little public awareness.[54]

According to Dibner, the RLA also approved the design. But the land agency also said that the architects should consult with William Zeckendorf and his architects so that the federal building's design could be coordinated with the design of L'Enfant Plaza. According to Dibner, the first meeting between the two sides was to have occurred on March 20, 1962.[56]

For his part, Zeckendorf already strongly opposed the span design. He argued that the 780-foot (240 m) long span would act like a wall, blocking off L'Enfant Plaza as effectively as the slums had. He also argued it violated the concept of an esplanade, as guaranteed in the MOU of 1954. GSA countered that by placing the building 36 feet (11 m) in the air, the vista to the National Mall was preserved. It also said that Zeckendorf's plan, which placed high-rise office buildings along 10th Street, would create a "canyon effect" that would destroy the vistas provided by the esplanade and that the span was critical to maintaining an effective flow of employees within the building.[57]

Although the two sides met again several times, no agreement could be reached. The GSA, NCPC, and RLA, however, agreed that the joint venture's plan for the building should proceed.[56]

The real impediment to building the structure was that federal government did not own the air rights over 10th Street SW, which was a street under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. In early 1962, GSA submitted legislation to Congress giving the agency these air rights.[51] The House passed this legislation in July,[56] and Senate approved it in August 1962.[57]

Looking at the eastern core beneath the North Building, at night. The public entrance lobby is visible.

The second design obstacle involved the look of the building. Arthur Q. Davis, of Davis & Curtis, said that the design team's goal was to avoid the typical blocky, monumental mass that typified too many office buildings. The architects wanted to introduce a "new vocabulary" to D.C. architecture, one which emphasized a sense of floating, gracefulness, and rectilinear elements.[58] According to Nathaniel Curtis, Jr., Davis's business partner, "A controversy existed between those who wanted to maintain the granite and marble of the Federal City and the new thinkers who favored exposed aggregate concrete, steel, and glass."[59] In April 1963,[52] the joint venture led by Curtis & Davis produced a low structure with glass panels held in place by aluminum frames. Two symmetrical wings extended down either side of 10th Street SW. CFA, however, felt that the Modernist structure did not fit with the Neoclassical architecture of the capital.[60] The CFA, which had explicit statutory authority over the aesthetics of the building, prodded the architectural joint venture to design a smaller building and to use traditional masonry. The commission argued that "uniqueness of individual design" must come second to retaining a unified look for buildings along the National Mall.[53]

After meeting with high-level GSA officials, the joint venture team produced a second design. Presented to the CFA on September 18, 1963, the new design featured a wall consisting of thin, vertical concrete ribs in front of a glass wall. A concrete band covered the roofline and the bottom of the structure.[52] By this time, however, six of the seven CFA members who had reviewed the April 1963 proposal were gone—their appointments to the commission having expired. The "new" CFA rejected the concrete rib treatment, again pushing for a masonry look compatible with nearby buildings. The design team argued that nearby structures were clad in buff limestone, red sandstone, white marble, and pink concrete and that there was no way to adopt a compatible façade.[52]

Nevertheless, a third design was submitted by the design team on October 15, 1963. In the meantime, the final member of the CFA had been appointed, leading to a change of views once more. This time, the CFA rejected the entire project, including the space beneath the structure for 10th Street SW. The CFA suggested three possible designs it would accept: 1) Elimination of 10th Street SW and the creation of a single large structure; 2) Two separate buildings with no connection over 10th Street SW; and 3) Two separate buildings with only one or two glass pedestrian skyways connecting them.[52]

The debate between the CFA and joint venture had now lasted several months, and the Department of Defense (DOD) became frustrated because its structure still had not been built. With the additional pressure from DOD, the architects agreed to redesign the façade yet again. A new design consisting of three buildings of different massings was presented to the CFA on November 20, 1963. But the CFA said that it had changed its mind again, and would accept only a single large structure blocking off 10th Street SW.[52] Conflict now emerged between the CFA and NCPC. On November 5, 1963, the NCPC reiterated its approval for a three-building solution with a span over 10th Street SW.[52] NCPC approval was required, but the CFA was merely an advisory body. GSA brokered a meeting of the two bodies to resolve their differences.

The CFA and NCPC met in the first joint session in their respective histories on January 9, 1964.[61] A final design team effort[61] was presented to the CFA and NCPC during the January 1964 meeting.[62] The treatment used rectilinear, precast concrete windows with large glass panels as the north façade of the North Building, and the east, west, and south façades of the East and West buildings. The design team felt this preserved their goal of having large areas of glass face Independence Avenue.[58] The North Building was also smaller than originally proposed. Now just four stories high, it was pierced in the middle near both ends by columns designed to contain the mechanical equipment — making the structure look much more like a bridge or arch.[60] Also gone were the identical high-rise structures extending down 10th Street. The East Building now was an eight-story-high, block-like mass with an interior courtyard which presented a blank, windowless façade to Independence Avenue. The West Building was now just two stories high, and contained a large auditorium as well as above-ground dining facilities.[60] The proposed structure had 1.789 million square feet (166,200 m²) of gross space and 1.263 million square feet (117,300 m²) of useable space.[62]

Although the new façade closely resembled that of the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building (then being designed by Marcel Breuer),[63] it remained highly controversial. According to Nathaniel Curtis, President John F. Kennedy himself intervened to approve the revised design. While on an airplane trip, Curtis happened to sit next to an old friend, Bob Troutman. Troutman was also Kennedy's Southeast Campaign Director. After explaining the problem the joint venture was facing, Curtis claims that Troutman spoke to Kennedy and that the President alone forced approval of the design.[59] The design team, according to Dibner, labored to complete a detailed final design and interior architectural drawings over the next few months.[61]

The approved design was made public in November 1964, and final architectural drawings were due in March 1965.[60] It was in early 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson issued an order christening the structure the James V. Forrestal Building, in honor of the first United States Secretary of Defense.[64] Final design details were worked out in the spring of 1965. President Johnson unveiled a model of the Forrestal Building at a joint meeting of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Pan American Congress of Architects. The AIA presented Johnson with a citation for the building's design.[47]

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Forrestal Building was identified as one of several federal buildings at high risk of terrorist attack due to its location near the U.S. Capitol and the National Mall and because of the work it does (nuclear weapons development).

In July 2003, the National Capital Planning Commission approved preliminary perimeter security enhancements for the Forrestal Building. These included the placement of bollards at pedestrian entrances, and a low wall of plinths next to the sidewalks. In 2004, DOE added jersey barriers along 10th Street and around the median running down the middle of L'Enfant Promenade (the esplanade), blocked off the taxicab stands, built temporary guard booths on the 10th Street median, and successfully petitioned the District of Columbia Department of Transportation to ban truck traffic along the northernmost portion of 10th Street. These actions were taken without the NCPC's approval.[101]

In 2005, DOE proposed additional security enhancements at the Forrestal Building. These included adding reinforced concrete shields around the pilotis (to protect them from blast damage); hardening 10th Street under the roadway with structural steel and reinforced concrete; permanent removal of the taxicab stands; the creation of a lobby around the west building core (to protect employees as they left the building); and the placement of concrete benches, concrete planters, and steel bollards along Independence Avenue and 10th Street. But DOE's most important security enhancements involved closing 10th Street and installing a blast shield. DOE proposed placing hydraulically activated bollards in the roadway at the north and south ends of the 10th Street perimeter of its site. Whenever the risk of terrorist attack was high, these bollards would rise up out of the ground and seal off the street. DOE also proposed adding a blast shield to the underside of the North Building. This shield would lower the space beneath the North Building by 9.5 feet (2.9 m) (to just 18 feet 1 inch (5.51 m)).[102]

Some of these security enhancements were accepted. The NCPC staff approved the installation of column wraps, the road hardening, and the construction of the lobby around the emergency egress building core. But the agency harshly criticized DOE for inappropriately proposing other security enhancements. The agency refused to approve the blast shield, the hydraulic bollards on 10th Street, or the emplacement of benches, planters, and bollards around the perimeter.[103] NCPC said that real security could only be achieved by dismantling the section of the North Building which extended over 10th Street SW.[104]

The Commission of Fine Arts also refused to approve the Forrestal Building blast shield, hydraulic bollards, or perimeter barriers. CFA commissioners strongly criticized the blast shield, saying it would make the building "fearful, like a bunker". CFA chairman David M. Childs essentially reversed the commission's approval of the structure in 1962, stating that the Forrestal Building did not maintain the vista along L'Enfant Promenade toward the Smithsonian Castle and the National Mall. The CFA also argued that the only way to truly secure the Forrestal Building was to remove the center section of the North Building.[105]

Removing the North Building's span over 10th Street SW has been the goal of several federal agencies, architectural critics, and civic leaders.

In the mid-2000s, as part of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, the D.C. Department of Transportation conducted a major re-evaluation of L'Enfant Plaza which concluded that removal of the span was the only way to restore the view and to remove the security risk the building caused.[85] The Commission of Fine Arts agreed in 2005. In a letter to DOE's director of security operations, CFA executive director Thomas Luebke wrote, "[T]he Commission strongly supports the removal of the center section of the building that bridges 10th Street, SW. In addition to removing the threat of a vehicle under the building, this solution would reestablish the important view from the Smithsonian Castle, down 10th Street..."[115] Luebke suggested that DOE enclose the open space beneath the North Building to add new occupiable space, reskin the entire structure, and reconfigure the mechanical system (which would have to be done at some point anyway, he said).[115]

An additional push to remove the center span came from the National Capital Planning Commission. In 2009, the NCPC released its Monumental Core Framework Plan, a comprehensive plan for the National Mall to increase the availability of space for new museums and memorials while adding residences and retail features that would make the city a more attractive place to live and work.[116] The plan was adopted by the Commission of Fine Arts on March 19, 2009, and approved by the NCPC on April 2, 2009.[117] The Monumental Core Framework Plan proposes demolishing the Forrestal Building and constructing apartment and office buildings along L'Enfant Promenade with retail and dining space at the street level to accommodate tourists and residents alike.[116][118]

There has also been an attempt to privatize the building. In October 2011, Representative Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) introduced legislation that would require the federal government to sell the Forrestal Building. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 31–22 along party lines to approve the bill as an amendment to broader legislation designed to allow the federal government sell off or get rid of excess property.[119] The legislation did not pass.

On September 28, 2012, the General Services Administration issued a "Notice of Intent", asking for proposals from private developers to redevelop the Forrestal Building along with four others (the Department of Agriculture's Cotton Annex building, the Federal Aviation Administration's Orville Wright Federal Building, the Federal Aviation Administration's Wilbur Wright Federal Building, and the GSA National Capital Region Regional Office Building). GSA nicknamed the complex of five buildings "Federal Triangle South".[120] GSA said its goal for potential redevelopment would be to revitalize the neighborhood around the office buildings. The agency also said it would move forward with redevelopment along the lines suggested by the National Capital Planning Commission in its "Southwest Ecodistrict" plan.[121] The Southwest Ecodistrict plan, released in July 2012 and intended for approval in January 2013, proposed turning Federal Triangle South, L'Enfant Plaza, and several other nearby federal buildings into a high-density, environmentally-friendly, sustainable-living area.[122]