The following team approach will provide an opportunity for
executive level input and review by the
heads of all the agency with operating responsibility in the
study area while taking advantage of a
diverse and highly specialized work force to address the variety
of complex issues. An executive
committee of agency heads and other key participants will provide
policy guidance, review, and
recommendations. An interagency planning team of senior-level
professionals from the National Park
Service, other participating agencies, and private consultants
will provide project definition and prepare
the plan.
COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN PLAN FOR THE WHlTE HOUSE
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
Task Date
Project Definition and Start-up April 1992
Brief key participants and verify
the areas needing data collection
and research
Technical Information Gathering June 1992 - April 1993
Research and prepare existing
conditions description, administrative
history, evolution of the historic
landscape, transportation conditions,
CAD model
Task Directive August 1992 - April 1993
Define the scope of the plan and
outline the planning process
Notice of Intent Issued March 1993
Announce beginning of scoping and
intent to prepare the comprehensive
design plan and an environmental
impact statement
Issue Identification April 1993- June 1993
Identify the issues and concerns
of the stewardship agencies,
organizations, groups, and the
general public about the study area.
Guiding Principles Established December 1992 - June 1993
Develop planning assumptions, purpose
and significance of the study area,
interpretive themes and desired
futures.
Alternatives Development June 1993 - March 1994
Based on the guiding principles,
develop a range of feasible design
concepts for the study area.
Draft Plan/EIS Development March 1994 - April 1995
Select a preferred alternative and
develop a draft plan. Document
compliance with environmental
regulations in an EIS.
Draft Plan/EIS Review and Revisions April - December 1995
Publish the draft plan/environmental
impact statement and hold public
meetings to discuss the project with
the public. Publish the final EIS and
record of decision.
Approved Plan/EIS December 1995
Final Plan and Plan Supplements Published February 1996
The project is scheduled to be
accomplished over approximately
four years at a'projected cost of
$2.9 million.
COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN PLAN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
PROJECT HISTORY
The White House was first envisioned as an in tegral part of a
great federal city. The architecture was to be monumental, with a
Greek theme symbolizing democracy and lafge public parks
providing the appropriate setting. Sweeping vistas would connect
the executive and legislative government buildings. President
George Washington chose the site for the city and Pierre L'Enfant
drew the plan. The history of the White House illustrates a
strong sense of destiny and sensitivity to thk design over two
centuries sf decision-making through 41 Administrations.
The site selected by L'Enfant for the President's "palace," a
prominent ridge of land overlooking the Potomac River, became the
first piece of property acquired for the federal city.
A lively debate soon ensued over the design of the structure
itself - whether it should be palatial or more practical. The
ultimate decision establisded a strong precedent: the President
would live in a house, not a palace, recognizing in the true
spirit of democracy that the property belonging ultimately to the
citizens. Balancing dignity with practicality and public access
became a recurring issue at the White House. Abigail Adams
decided that the First Family's laundry should be hung in the
East Room, rather than airing it in public. President Thomas
Jefferson decided that an outhouse was inappropriate. Striking a
balance between functional needs and an appropriate image for the
White House remains a challenge to this day.
In 1814 the British burned the White House. President James
Madison determined that it would be rebuilt exactly as it had
appeared before, making it a symbol of the stability and the
continuity of American democratic government and estabiishing a
strong precedent for maintaining the historic character of the
site. In 1851 an eminent designer, Andrew Jackson Downing,
designed the first formal landscaping plan for the entire White
House reservation, including the Ellipse on the south, and
established a framework for that area that has been retained in
part to this day. When new office buildings were finally seen as
imperative, the Treasury Building (1869) and Executive Office
Building (1886) were constructed on the sites of preexisting
structures, attempting to avoid additional impacts on the open
spaces critical to L'Enfant's plan.
Faced yet again with a critical shortage of space, President
Theodore Roosevelt reviewed the work of the McMillan Commission
and decided in 1901 to add the West Wing to the White House to
accommodate the Executive Office. Again, full attention was given
to preserving the historic character. The West Wing was designed
to be unobtrusive, and the attention to detail included lowering
the delivery roads so they would not intrude on the historic
scene. When the East Wing was added in the 1940s, it mirrored the
scale of the West Wing. Also during the Franklin Roosevelt
Administration, the Olmsted Brothers comprehensively reviewed the
landscape history of the site. Placing "the utmost importance" on
strengthening the "long-established landscape qualities of great
dignity and appropriateness, they reclaimed L'Enfant's grand
vistas, which had been somewhat obscured by Victorian fussiness
and overmature vegetation.
The last major decision affecting the architectural character of
the White House was President Harry S. Truman"s decision to solve
the severe structural problems that had first become apparent in
the 1920s. The reconstruction of the White House during Truman"s
Administration created an opportunity to meet additional space
requirements with extensive underground construction, thus
avoiding any further exterior alteration.
Changing conditions over the past half century have presented
major new challenges for the stewards of the White House. Many
problems have been solved as they have arisen. However, the lack
of comprehensive planning has resulted in a piecemeal approach to
problem solving. This has not been sufficient to protect the
integrity of the White House from encroachment by surrounding
urban land uses. Nor has it adequately accommodated the
functional needs of the Executive Office and Residence or the
needs of visitors who come in ever-increasing numbers from
throughout the nation and the world to tour the White House.
The wide-ranging issues facing the site today include addressing
the needs of visitor use and education, cultural and natural
resource protection, special events, site operations, maintenance
and facility development, transportation and parking, security,
state and diplomatic functions, the Executive Residence and
Executive Office., and support facilities.
In October 1989 the National Park Service, convinced that
comprehensive planning was crucial to protect the character of
the White House and to satisfactorily deal with myriad competing
activities, presented a proposal for a comprehensive design plan
to the many organizations with responsibility at the White House
and President's Park. The proposal was strongly supported,
and Congress provided funding to begin the planning process in
fiscal year 1992.
COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN PLAN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
The National Park Service is preparing a plan to guide the,
future management and use of the buildings and grounds at the
White House, aiming to better serve the public and the Presidency
and to protect the historic character of this national treasure.
The White House is unique among our national monuments in that it
is functional as well as symbolic. As one of several agencies
entrusted with management responsibilities at the White House,
the National Park Service recognizes its dual responsibilities to
effectively and efficiently accommodate the overlapping and
increasingly complex functions of the Executive Residence, the
Executive Office, and a "living" museum preserve the historic
character of the monumental buildings and landscapes that have
come to symbolize the stability and continuity of our democratic
form of government .
Meeting all the expectations for the physical environment of the
White House demands a visionary, comprehensive design plan to
guide the development and operation of the site. The plan will be
accomplished through an interagency, multidisciplinary team of
highly qualified, senior-level professionals capable of meeting
the special needs of planning for the White House. A working
partnership among all the affected agencies and representatives
of the national interest will be critical to the success of this
effort. The products will include comprehensive design plan for
the White House and sulrounding -President's Park and plan
supplements establishing guidelines for site design and
operations. The entire effort is scheduled to be accomplished
over approximately four years at a projected cost of $2.9
million.
SPRING, 1995 STATUS REPORT
A multidisciplinary core planning team has been formed by the
National Park Service. Data collection and issue ~identification
are almost complete. Data collection included documentation of
existing conditions, a traffic study, an administrative history,
and a cultural landscape evaluation. Additionally, a three-
dimensional model has been developed for the site on a
computer-aided design (CAD) system. Ongoing contact with the
stewardship and oversight agencies has been maintained throughout
the process.
Issues at the site were identified in a series of 26 workshops
held between April and October 1993. Over 70 agencies and
organizations were invited to attend the workshops. A public
involvement activity was held on the Ellipse for 4 days to
gather issues and reactions from visitors. Work on alternatives
began in October, 1993, when 80 public and private sector subject
matter experts developed desired futures for the study area.
Alternative concepts have been developed and will be reviewed by
the public in April, 1995. An Executive Committee, composed of
the Congressionaly chartered stewardship and oversight agencies
at the study area, continues to guide the planning process. The
Executive Committee is exploring implementation and financing
strategies and the development of design guidelines to accompany
the final plan. Public review of a draft plan is expected
by the late fall of 1995. A final plan and Environmental Impact
Statement will be completed in 1996.
COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN PLAN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
RESOURCE ISSUES AND TOPICS
The following topics will be addressed in the Comprehensive
Design Plan for the White House. We would appreciate hearing
about your issues and concerns in each topic area during the
upcoming issue workshop. Questions pertaining to each topic are
included to stimulate, but not limit, your thoughts.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION:
What steps need to be taken
to protect and maintain the multiple onsite cultural and natural
resources? These resources, which include the White House and
other significant buildings, monuments, and memorial plantings in
the White House gardens, are subject to active use and intensive
management.
EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE:
What support functions are needed to provide
a home for the President -- a place that offers privacy, comfort,
and recreation for the First Family?
OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES:
What support functions are needed to
ensure smooth and efficient operations of the White House as the
Office of the President?
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS:
What support systems are necessary to
successfully accommodate ceremonial activities involving heads of
state and dignitaries?
SECURITY:
What measures need to be taken to ensure protection for
the First Family, employees, guests, and visitors?
SPECIAL EVENTS:
What support functions are needed for onsite
Federal or privately sponsored activities and demonstrations that
involve groups of varying sizes?
VISITOR USE AND SERVICES:
How should visitors experience the
White House and President's Park? Specific issues involve the
level af interptetation, recreational opportunities on adjacent
parklands, educational opportunities, safety concerns,
concessions, and support facilities.
TRANSPORTATION:
What modes of transportation, local and regional
routes, and parking space requirements are needed to accommodate
daily users, as well as activities such as special events and
state functions?
SITE CHARACTER:
What elements within the landscape make that area
or space special?
SITE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE:
What daily or periodic functions
must take place to meet the aeeds of site users, to preserve the
cultural and natural resources, and to optimize visitor
experiences?
SITE MANAGEMENT:
What are the interrelationships between the
agencies that cooperatively manage the site (that is, the
stewardship agencies), as well as between the stewardship
agencies and other agencies, groups, and organizations with
interests and involvement in the site? How can these
cooperative interrelationships be optimized?
Pennsylvania Ave. Closure || Peace Park