COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 30 April 1996 Question: Some years ago Congress passed the Commemorative Works Act which was designed to curb the proliferation of memorials. How is it working? What is the role of the Commission? What can you do to improve its functioning? Answer: I believe the main surge of memorial proposals has finally been stemmed. The ones under construction or awaiting final approval all conform to the guidelines approved by Congress, that is, they all meet the criteria of being of preeminent historical significance. Two of these memorials, in fact, are to commemorate figures that date back to the Revolution; Thomas Paine and George Mason. One of the provisions of the guidelines requires the subject to have been dead for at least twenty-five years prior to the authorization of a memorial. While this was thought as one way to cut back on the number of proposals, nobody thought there would be efforts to honor people long since gone. I hope Paine and Mason are the exceptions and not the rule. Otherwise we could be in for a never-ending stream of monuments. We will continue to demand most exacting standards for memorial design. Question: The Monumental Core Framework Plan recently released by the National Capital Planning Commission has generated a lot of interest in the appearance of the National Capital Region. How does the Commission fit into that effort? Please comment on the current status of the Framework plan. Answer: We were kept abreast of their studies as they developed. I believe it's useful every now and then to reexamine our long-range ideas and come up with some new ones if necessary. They have essentially reaffirmed our longstanding plans as embodied in the original L'Enfant design and later in the socalled McMillan Commission Plan, a position we have adhered to and one we are happy to see reaffirmed. By law, of course, they are restricted from addressing problems that are considered to be more local in nature and outside the narrow sense of the federal interest. That's a condition a lot of us have had trouble accepting. The notion that problems of a large city can be pigeonholed into separate planning for separate interests is seriously flawed. As we approach the bicentennial of the National Capital, we should certainly take this opportunity to give a thorough look at the planning process. In the meantime, we understand that the plan is to be circulated to the public on a nationwide basis for review and comment. Question: What legislation or practical changes in the way planning bodies interact would be useful to encourage better coordinated planning of the National Capital Region? Answer: There ought to be a single planning agency that has regional authority with teeth. This is especially necessary for the coordination of area-wide transportation matters which under the current circumstances differ widely by state, county, and the District of Columbia. While land use policies will always be difficult to coordinate for a variety of reasons, it is worth the effort if the scattershot aspects of current planning could be brought under the purview of a single regional body. Question: How is downtown development in Washington D.C. coming? Do you see any turnaround for what is generally perceived to be a dying area? What role can, and does, the Commission have in helping make the downtown area more attractive to investment, citizens, and visitors? Answer: We are neither planners nor soothsayers, but we see a lot of positive things happening downtown that signal an eventual turnaround. Several new private offices are underway, as well as two new buildings for the government: one for the Secret Service, the other for the FBI, in addition to the large Ronald Reagan Federal Triangle Building. The MCI Arena should have a very considerable impact, generating a lot of energy, especially at night and on weekends. The Shakespeare Theater is a great success as will be the Opera Company if the District Government allows it to happen. But our view is considerably different from some. Certainly it would appear that the area no longer can sustain the kind of merchandising associated with the scale of a major department store. Specialty shops, yes. Restaurants, yes. Bloomingdales and Nordstroms, not likely! Any major undertakings of a public nature such as the arena or convention center would be reviewed by the Commission with the purpose of ensuring a high level of design for not only the specific structure but also for its urban environment. This is essential to attracting new investments in the downtown area. Question: During the 50th anniversary year of the invasion of Normandy in World War II, you reported on the efforts of a private foundation to erect a so-called Wall of Liberty. I understand it has not been built yet, and there are many unhappy veterans who donated money for the memorial. Has anything happened since we last discussed this? The Answer: It's a sad story. A lot of money was raised from a lot of individual donors, but it was poorly managed and otherwise misspent: there was nothing left for the memorial. former head of the effort has been replaced by Pierre Salinger, and I've been advised that he is currently heading up an effort in this Congress to get funds to build the memorial. I believe his goal is two million dollars. If he's successful with his legislative endeavor, and I certainly think it's a worthy cause, the money will be turned over to the American Battle Monuments Commission which would take responsibility for the construction. At that stage we would be involved in approving the design, as we do for all overseas U.S. military memorials. Question: Provide a list of the Commission members, as well as the dates that their terms began and expire. Answer: J. Carter Brown, Chairman, October 1994 Carolyn Brody, October 1994 October 1998 December 1998 February 2000 Question: Provide a five-year table on administrative services paid to the Department of the Interior. Answer: Administrative Services paid to the Department of the Interior (in thousands): Question: Last year you received level funding. What has been the impact of your absorbing uncontrollable costs? What would be the impact of receiving a ten percent reduction below that level? Answer: Further reductions in the Commission's appropriations would be like squeezing blood from a turnip - there's not much there to start with. Consolidation of agenda items into longer and fewer meetings is about the only means available to absorb increased costs without an increase in appropriations. The downside of this approach is the delay it is likely to cause certain projects. For example, the MCI Arena is on a so-called "fast track" and much of the design is being done while construction is underway. Any delays could prove very costly, so a few dollars saved by eliminating a Commission meeting could end up costing someone a lot more, and that someone is going to be the tax-payer in public projects. Question: What role has the Commission had in military construction and design projects during the past year? Answer: In the District a number of military construction projects have been reviewed for the Anacostia and Bolling sites, the Navy Yard, Naval Observatories (old and new) and Ft. McNair. In Virginia, Ft. Myer is involved in both renovation and new construction as is the Pentagon and the adjoining Arlington National Cemetery. of particular interest in Arlington was the memorial erected there during this past year to commemorate the loss of life in the Pan Am 103 disaster. Question: How was the Commission involved in the site selection for the World War II Memorial? Now that the site has been chosen, what is the next step and how will the Commission fit in? Answer: It was the Commission that initially suggested the Rainbow Pool area for the World War II Memorial as an alternative to a spot in Constitution Gardens, a location that was thought to be insufficiently commanding in its relationship to other major memorials. The American Battle Monuments Commission is the lead agency with overall responsibility for design and construction. As to the design, I believe they are doing something quite innovative by asking the General Services Administration to manage a competition under what is generally referred to as GSA's Design Excellence Program. It's the same method employed in the federal courthouse program which as you know is an enormous undertaking. They have had remarkably good results from what I've heard, so it makes sense to utilize their experience and know-how. We will be kept apprised of progress, but our formal role as a reviewing agency precludes us from the architect selection process simply because it might appear to conflict with rendering objective and unbiased advice. Question: The Korean War Memorial seems to have been well received. What was the role of the Commission in its design? Answer: The design for the Korean War Memorial presented problems that were particularly difficult to resolve. The initial design was chosen in a competition. As the review process progressed, it became clear that a number of features did not work and had to be changed, a conclusion that was unacceptable to the winning team of landscape architects who subsequently resigned. The Washington firm of Cooper Lecky Architects took over the project and saw it through to completion after an extensive search for an acceptable solution. The Commission worked with them and Vermont sculptor Frank Gaylord every step of the way. The final array of combatants, their uniforms and their individual demeanor was subject to exacting inspection and review of many iterations. Question: The FDR Memorial should be ready for dedication in just one more year. What has been the role of the Commission in its design? Answer: The Commission's role has been long and complicated. The initial efforts to secure a design were unsuccessful. The winning design selected in a major architectural competition would have seriously detracted from other nearby memorials and was rejected by the Commission. Other attempts followed as the result of direct solicitation of designs by the FDR Memorial Commission but were rejected for similar reasons. Not until 1979, when landscape architect Lawrence Halprin developed the original concept for the current design, was the Commission sufficiently persuaded to give its approval, and then only after substantial reduction in size had been achieved and surrounding roadways partially restored. More recently, the Commission has focused on details of the sculptural elements, a process that has involved inspection of work in progress at the artists' studios and foundries. Question: The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation was recently terminated and its operations split up among a number of agencies. Does the Commission have a role here? |