Summer 1992 Table of Contents
Plans for Washington Navy Yard Draw Federal Criticism
The National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has submitted critical comments to the General Services Administration over its plans to develop the Washington Navy Yard.
The comments came from a three-member panel of the council which held a public hearing on January 27, 1992, in response to the decision of the federal General Services Administration to terminate discussions on the effects of the proposed plan.
The panel commended the overall program goals of the project but found that it will harm the National Register-eligible Navy Yard Annex Historic District and may impinge upon historic vistas established by Pierre L'Enfant's original plan for the capital city.
GSA's handling of the Section 106 consultation process was also criticized and recommendations for improvement suggested.
GSA proposes to develop the Southeast Federal Center as a major Federal office complex through a combination of building rehabilitation and new construction. The current project master plan calls for the demolition of ten buildings, four of which contribute to the significance of the Washington Navy Yard Annex Historic District, the renovation of six buildings, and the construction of approximately five million square feet of new office space and two hundred thousand square feet of retail space for the use of the projected office-based community.
One of the buildings scheduled for demolition, Building 159 (how's that for a catchy name?), is noted for its architecture and its overall prominence within the historic district
The project would affect the Washington Navy Yard Annex Historic District and the Washington Navy Yard Historic District, both listed in the National Register of Historic Places, along with numerous other properties eligible for inclusion.
Conversations have been underway for some time among GSA, the District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Officer and the Council regarding the appropriateness of the master plan's intention and its projected effects on historic properties.
Specific questions include the necessity of demolishing historic industrial buildings, which GSA figures show could be cost effective if converted to office space, in order to construct new buildings designed to convey an "industrial character."
GSA's commitment to properly addressing the complex archeological issues associated with the site have also drawn scrutiny. The site contains the only remaining historic urban waterfront context in the District of Columbia and has the potential to reveal a great deal about the social and economic development of early Washington.
In view of the considerable progress on these issues made through the ongoing consultation process, GSA's announcement of its decision to terminate further discussion was completely unexpected. "We were quite surprised by GSA's action," comments Robert D. Bush, Advisory Council
Executive Director. "We felt that we were very close to reaching a solution that all parties would have found most acceptable."
Based on a review of the testimony at the public hearing, the panel suggested that GSA reconsider the demolition of Building 159 from an economic and design standpoint.
It also recommended development and implementation of plans to interpret the site's history, address area archaeology, and ensure the compatibility of new construction with the existing historic fabric.
The panel also recommended that GSA reexamine its procedures for Section 106 compliance in the National Capital Region, particularly with regard to the coordination of its various offices to make certain that opportunities are provided for meaningful consultation with the Council and the DC Historic Preservation Office.
The GSA must consider the comments of the Advisory Council in making its final decision on the proposed redevelopment project.
