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