500 17th Street, N.W.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
Office of Adjudication
941 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite #9100
P.O. Box 37140
Washington, D.C. 20013-7200

THE CORCORAN GALLERY OF ART Square 171

DECISION AND ORDER

This case came before Rohulamin Quander, Administrative law Judge, and the designated Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation (the "Mayor's Agent"), on April 16, 2002, upon the request for an administrative hearing filed by The Corcoran Gallery of Art (the "Applicant" or "Corcoran") for a permit to demolish a portion of the rear wall of the Corcoran Gallery of Art located at 500 17th Street, N.W., in order to construct a project of special merit and one that is consistent with the purposes of the District of Columbia’s Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978, as amended (the "Act"), D.C. Code Ann. Sec. 6-1101 et seq. (2001 ed.). See also Title 10, DCMR, Chapters 24 and 25 (1991). The Applicant proposes a project involving an addition to the Corcoran Gallery, which is listed as an individual landmark in the District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites and on the National Register of Historic Places as a National Historic Landmark.

The hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR). At the conclusion of the hearing the record was left open until May 17, 2002, to receive requested post-hearing submissions. [1]

The partial demolition application and proposed project had been previously considered by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (“CFA”) under the provisions of the Shipstead-Luce Act, 40 U.S.C.A. Sec. 121 et seq. (2001). The CFA recommended that the Mayor approve the partial demolition and new construction in letters dated October 31, 2001, and March 25, 2002.

Pursuant to D.C. Code, Secs. 6-1104 and 6-1107 of the Act, both the permit application and proposal for new construction were referred to the Historic Preservation Review Board ("HPRB" or "Board"). By action taken March 28, 2002, the HPRB adopted its staff’s report and recommended that the Mayor's Agent deny the application for a permit for partial demolition as “inconsistent with the purposes of Act.”

The HPRB also adopted its staff report on the conceptual design of the new addition, which noted the project’s avant-garde design, “encouraged” the Applicant to limit the amount of demolition of the existing landmark, but raised no objection to the overall form, height and style of the Applicant’s proposal.

At the Mayor’s Agent hearing, Whayne S. Quin, Esquire, and Carolyn Brown, Esquire, of Holland & Knight LLP appeared as legal counsel on behalf of the Applicant. David Levy, President and Director of the Corcoran Gallery, was recognized as an expert in the fields of museum management, art and architectural history and education, and testified in support of the application. Frank O. Gehry, FAIA, and Tensho Takemori, AIA, of Gehry Partners, LLP, were recognized as experts in the field of architecture and museum design and testified in support of the application. Colden Florance, FAIA, of Smith Group Architects, was also qualified as an expert in architecture and testified in support of the application. Dorothy Miller on behalf of Advisory Neighborhood Commission ("ANC") 2A, and Dorothy McSweeny, Chairman of the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities, each testified in support of the application. Ellen McCarthy, Deputy Director of the D.C. Office of Planning ("OP") for the District of Columbia, testified in support of the project as one of special merit based upon its exemplary architecture.

Bruce Brennan, Esquire, Assistant Corporation Counsel, appeared on behalf of OP in opposition to the Applicant’s specific claim that the proposed demolition would be consistent with the purposes of the Act, but in support of OP’s determination of special merit based upon the project’s “exemplary architecture.” See also footnote 1.

Other opponents of the project also gave oral or written statements during the hearing. Sally Berk, an architectural historian and representing the D.C. Preservation League (“DCPL”), testified in opposition to the project as one of special merit, and as consistent with the purposes of the Act. Don Hawkins, AIA, on behalf of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City (Committee of 100), and Linda Crocker Simmons, also testified in opposition to the project. Andrea Ferster, Esquire, on behalf of the Committee of 100, submitted a post-hearing memorandum opposing the project as one of special merit and as consistent with the purposes of the Act. See also footnote 1. Additional written statements in opposition to the Applicant’s project was also submitted by T. David Bell, President of DCPL, and Professor Richard Guy Wilson, Department of Architectural History, University of Virginia.

Besides the Applicant, there were no parties of record, either in support of, or in opposition to the Applicant’s project.

Based on the substantial evidence in the entire record of this proceeding, including all written and oral testimony submitted at or as part of the hearing by experts and others, the HPRB report and recommendation, and the recommendations of the Commission of Fine Arts, OP and ANC 2A, the Mayor's Agent concludes that the application for partial demolition should be GRANTED.

ISSUE

The sole issue to be decided is whether the Applicant has sustained its burden of proof under the Act that the issuance of the partial demolition permit for the project is “necessary in the public interest” in order to construct a project of “special merit.”

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Mayor's Agent, having received all of the evidence presented in this matter, and having reviewed same and given the proper weight to the expert testimony presented, now makes the following Findings of Fact:

1. In accordance with sections 6-1104 and 6-1107 of the Act, the Corcoran submitted to DCRA its applications for partial demolition of the rear elevation of the gallery and conceptual design plans for a new addition. The applications were forwarded to the HPRB as H.P.A. Nos. 02-284 (partial demolition) and 02-180 (new construction), and to the Commission of Fine Arts ("CFA") pursuant to the Shipstead-Luce Act as S.L. Case Nos. 01-082 (new construction) and 02-037 (partial demolition).

2. The CFA unanimously recommended that the Mayor approve the proposed addition in concept and the partial demolition application. In its October 31, 2001, correspondence to the Mayor’s Agent, the CFA noted that the proposed project respected the existing historic building, would bring a unique and notable façade to New York Avenue that complements the existing Corcoran site, would enhance the operations and programs of the Corcoran and the public’s experience of the city’s galleries, and would serve as a “building for the new century.”

3. Pursuant to the Act at D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1104 (c) and (e), and 6-1107 , the Mayor or the Mayor's designated agent has the authority to hear the merits of demolition applications for individually designated landmarks. In accordance with the Act, the application was referred to the Mayor's Agent for administrative hearing, and by letter dated March 6, 2002, the Applicant notified the Mayor's Agent that it would argue that the proposed partial demolition is necessary in the public interest to construct a project of special merit, and further because the granting of this Application is consistent with the purposes of the Act. See 10 DCMR Sec.2507.8(a). A timely notice of the hearing was published in the D.C. Register on March 15, 2002.

4. By action taken on March 28, 2002, during its regularly scheduled meeting, the HPRB adopted its staff’s report and recommended that the Mayor's Agent deny the application for a permit for partial demolition as “inconsistent with the purposes of Act.” This recommendation was in direct contrast to the partial demolition recommend by the CFA. Additionally, the HPRB adopted the staff report’s favorable recommendation on the conceptual design of the new addition, and while encouraging the Applicant to limit the amount of demolition of the existing landmark, raised no objection to the overall form, height and style of the Applicant’s proposal. The staff report also recommended that the HPRB “acknowledge that the concept for the addition is an interesting, avant-garde design. [2] ”

5. The Corcoran Gallery of Art is the oldest art museum and college of art in Washington, D.C., and the city's largest private cultural institution. Situated at the western end of Washington's monumental core, the Corcoran Gallery is located across the street from the White House grounds and the Ellipse on the west side of 17th Street, N.W., between E Street to the south and New York Avenue to the north. The area is comprised of a mixture of governmental uses, modern office structures and historic buildings. To the west of the site, immediately adjacent to a vacant portion of the Corcoran parcel, is the United Unions Building, an eight-story office structure built in 1972 to a height of 90 feet. To the north on New York Avenue are other modern office buildings and the historic Octagon House.

6. The present Corcoran Gallery of Art consists of two main sections: the original building designed by Ernest Flagg in 1892 and constructed in 1897 (the "Flagg Building"), and an addition at the southwest portion of the original building designed by Charles Adams Platt and completed in 1927 (the "Platt Addition"). The Flagg Building was at the forefront of the classical movement in America, and served as the introduction of the “Beaux Arts” style of architecture to the city. This building is composed in a Classical tripartite arrangement and faced in white marble. It was designed to accommodate three principal uses, each of which is articulated in the massing of the building. The gallery and exhibition space is located in the main rectangular mass along 17th Street, the School of Art in a separate wing along New York Avenue, and a lecture hall and auditorium designed to serve both spaces is located at the corner of the building known as the Hemicycle. The curved walls of the Hemicycle round the corner from 17th Street to New York Avenue to create a transition between the two wings. The rear (west) elevation of the Flagg Building was unornamented and constructed of common brick, in anticipation of future additions.

7. The Platt Addition was designed by architect Charles Adams Platt, famous for his country houses and designer of the Freer Gallery in the city. He had exhibited paintings and etchings at the Corcoran. The Platt Addition was constructed in 1927 to house the collection of Montana Senator William Andrews Clark. This addition enlarged the original building to the southwest along E Street, changing the rectangular plan of the building to an L-shape configuration. The northern portion of the site along New York Avenue remains vacant and is the focal point for the Applicant’s project.

8. Because of increased attendance at and demands on the Corcoran’s programs, at both the Gallery and the School of Art, the Corcoran determined to construct a third and final addition to its museum and school. The Corcoran held a design competition for the new wing, and in 1999, the architectural firm of Frank O. Gehry and Associates, Inc., was awarded the commission. Mr. Gehry is generally regarded as an architect of world-renown.

Partial Demolition

9. The Applicant seeks demolition for the entire north exterior wall of the Platt Addition as well as the Rotunda, the Platt/Clark landing and part of the skylighted gallery/studio space. The Rotunda and the Platt/Clark landing currently serve as the principal connection and transition space between the Flagg Building and the Platt Addition. Although the National Register of Historic Places nomination of the Corcoran in 1991 specifically recognizes the Rotunda, Platt/Clark landing and the skylighted gallery/studio space as contributing to the landmark status of the Corcoran building, only the protections afforded by the local historic preservation law govern any proposed changes to the landmark building, and in this particular case, the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites does not specifically include the interior of the building as a part of the landmark designation..

10. Applicant’s expert, Tensho Takemori, conducted exhaustive studies of alternatives and concluded that demolition of these spaces was nevertheless necessary. Without the proposed demolition, the Corcoran would need to create an additional 22,500 square feet in the new addition than is already contemplated, as the mid-level floor created in the Platt Addition at the central axis of the building results in a significant amount of wasted space. Further, given the constraints of the vacant portion of the property, and the specific requirements of museum gallery space, including greater than normal ceiling heights to display works of art and sculpture, the new addition would have to be almost 42 feet taller to compensate for this inefficient use of space in the original building. It would also require another 26 feet of excavation below grade to accommodate the college and mechanical/service areas. Because the height of the new addition already meets the maximum permitted height of 90 feet under the D.C. Zoning Regulations, and additionally because of unfavorable soil conditions and the prohibitive costs of excavation, partial demolition of the Platt Addition is considered necessary.

11. According to the Applicant, the Flagg Building and Platt Addition have undergone numerous interior alterations since their original construction to accommodate changing administrative and operational needs, the evolution of new mediums of fine art, and the growth in the numbers of visitors, collections and students at the school. The original galleries, studios and classroom spaces at the basement level of the Flagg Building have long ago been converted to offices, production or storage space, and utility rooms.

12. According to the Applicant, less than ten percent (10%) of the existing building's approximately 135,000 gross square feet of interior space will be removed. The plans show that all street elevations of the Beaux Arts building will remain intact, although restored, rehabilitated, and renovated to its original grandeur, as will likewise be the case with the original Flagg Building. The plans indicate that 3,925 net square feet of gallery space and public area will be removed from the Platt Addition. [3] Moreover, as part of the Applicant’s plans, the historic Beaux-Arts landmark will be restored; fourteen galleries hidden from the public for the past 50 to 75 years will be returned to service; and spaces in the lower level will be reprogrammed with uses compatible with their original intent. Mechanical, electrical, public and security systems will be upgraded and enhanced, and access provided for the handicapped.

The New Addition: Design and Functions

13. The design for the Corcoran addition signals a major departure from the late-nineteenth century Beaux-Arts classicism while at the same time attempting to respect the original design of the Flagg Building. According to the Applicant, the Corcoran addition will rise to height of 90 feet and span approximately 200 feet along New York Avenue, including gallery, library, studio, classroom, administrative and support spaces. The new addition will have an exterior of glass and brushed stainless steel with three ribbon-like panels of steel reminiscent of sails. Moreover, the panels of the brushed stainless steel are formed into conical shapes, creating "sentinels" along the New York Avenue elevation. The curves of the sentinels are designed to draw pedestrians inward to the glass entranceway and the interior atrium beyond. Skylights rising from the New York Avenue sidewalk also delineate a new entrance on New York Avenue and mark the location of the new studio and classroom space for the School of Art in the lower level of the new addition.

14. The new addition will comprise approximately 135,000 square feet of gross floor area, which will double the existing gallery space of the museum. Three levels of new galleries, centered on a 130-foot high soaring atrium, will be connected through a serious of suspended walkways. Approximately 15,000 square feet will be designated for the Children's Center for Art and Technology, a program combining imaginative programming and new technologies for the education of youth. Another 4,000 square feet of space will be devoted to a centrally located institutional library, archive and research center. The project will maintain the existing entrance along 17th Street, N.W., although a new entrance to the new addition will be constructed on New York Avenue.

15. The removal of approximately 11,000 square feet in the 1927 addition will generate more than 22,000 square feet of galleries and public areas in the new addition. Currently there are eleven galleries in the Flagg Building and thirteen galleries in the Platt Addition. As a result of the proposed demolition, there will be a net gain in gallery space in the existing building, with twenty-one original galleries in the Flagg Building and seventeen in the Platt Addition operational again. The proposed addition will also allow for the restoration of Flagg's original circulation intent of a central atrium surrounded by galleries.

16. The design plan for the new addition includes projections into public space along New York Avenue, an important street on the original L'Enfant Plan for the city of Washington. The L'Enfant Plan is listed in the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites and on the National Register of Historic Places. The projections include the exterior cladding of the building, which extends over the sidewalk to create a canopy effect; below-grade vault space to be used for the Corcoran School of Art; and skylights over the vault areas. According to the design plans, the point of greatest projection is approximately 19 feet at the building "canopies," less than the existing projection of the entrance stairs to the School of Art at New York Avenue.

17. According to the Applicant, neither the proposed projections nor the existing ones are incompatible with the L'Enfant Plan and, in fact, are consistent with numerous projections into public space throughout the original city and on other landmark buildings. Moreover, the character of this section of New York Avenue west of the White House has developed differently from the original L'Enfant Plan. As conceived, New York Avenue was to extend westward across Virginia Avenue to 23rd Street, according to the first several publications of the L'Enfant Plan and the Tin Case Map. As the plan evolved, however, this section of New York Avenue is now only one block long. Thus, the proposed projections will not be able to intrude upon the grand vista for New York Avenue because it has already been compromised. Nevertheless, the 160-foot wide breadth of the avenue is still intact and can amply support the proposed projections. Over 37 feet will still remain between the street curb and the building projection. The existing 17.5-foot sidewalk width will be maintained along New York Avenue in its entirety.

18. The existing entrance on 17^th Street, N.W., will remain, thus preserving the integrity of the original design of the historic landmark. Although DCPL and others have suggested that the creation of such a grand entrance on New York Avenue will render the original entrance as subordinate, the Mayor’s Agent finds otherwise. The original entrance will continue to be used by pedestrians, especially those who approach from across the Mall, the Ellipse, and from the monuments to the South.

19. In light of numerous studies carried out by the Applicant regarding soil conditions and foundation issues, the Applicant maintains that it is unable to furnish an underground parking garage for the new addition. Nonetheless, because the Corcoran building is an historic landmark, no parking is required for the addition under the District's Zoning Regulations pursuant to 11 DCMR 2100.5.

20. The opponents of the new addition, including the DCPL and the Committee of 100 maintain that:

a) The architecture of the proposed addition is not sufficiently “exemplary” to justify the demolition of the north exterior wall of the Platt Addition, the Rotunda, the Platt/Clark landing, and part of the skylighted gallery/studio space;

b) Where demolition is sought in order to construct a building of “exemplary architecture,” the judgment of what constitutes “exemplary architecture” must be made in relation to the architectural and/or historical value of the structure that will be demolished;

c) In this case, the national and local landmark status of the current Corcoran building, including the elements proposed to be demolished, are themselves “exemplary” architecture, and that their preservation outweighs the aesthetic contribution of the new addition;

d) That there is insufficient evidence in the record to suggest that the new addition could not be built without demolishing the Rotunda and Platt/Clark landing; and

e) The projection of the new addition onto New York Avenue, especially the new entrance, would negatively intrude into public space that is part of the L’Enfant Plan, which is itself a national and local landmark.

Office of Planning Recommendation

21. Ellen McCarthy, Deputy Director of OP, stated OP’s strong support of the new addition as a project of special merit on the basis of its exemplary architecture. According to Ms. McCarthy, the new addition is an imaginative and widely acclaimed project of a master, world-class architect, and is precisely the type of “exemplary architecture” contemplated by the Act to warrant status as a project of special merit.

Advisory Neighborhood Commission Recommendation

22. Dorothy Miller, representing Advisory Neighborhood Commission (“ANC”) 2A, presented the recommendation of ANC 2A that the Mayor’s Agent approve the new addition as a project of special merit. The Mayor’s Agent is persuaded by this recommendation, and accords the ANC position “great weight”, as provided by D.C. Code, Sec. 1-309.10(d), (2001 ed.).

Other Evidence

23. Dorothy McSweeny, Chairman of the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities, testified in support of the new addition as a project of special merit based on its exemplary architecture and other contributions to the local arts community.

24. According to the Applicant’s witnesses, the Comprehensive Plan and Ward 2 Plan specifically recognize the District's national and international reputation as a cultural center and the city's civic responsibility to strengthen and reinforce the city as one of the great arts and cultural/education centers of the world. See 10 DCMR Sec. 105.1, 1334.1 (1999). The new addition is intended to be a major contribution to the aesthetic value of Washington and a significant international cultural attraction. The Applicant also maintains that the new addition is expected to draw over one million visitors a year upon its completion. As a result, it is intended to promote local tourism and help advertise the cosmopolitan image of the District and its cultural facilities. See 10 DCMR 200.8 and 203.2. The Applicant also contends that the new addition is planned to further the city's goals of fostering uses for art and other cultural resources in the Central Employment Area. 10 DCMR 205. Additionally, the Applicant notes that the exemplary architecture of the new addition would help fulfill Section 807.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages the embellishment of special streets, such as New York Avenue, with monuments, sculpture, gardens, distinctive buildings and other features of civic art.

25. Colden Florance, an expert in architecture with experience in renovation work and other historic preservation projects, and a former member of the HPRB and DCPL, supported the new addition both as exemplary architecture and for its capacity to allow for the exhibition of artwork that cannot otherwise fit into the existing building, to provide the necessary facilities for the School of Art, and to restore fifteen rooms back to their original gallery use. With respect to the removal of the Rotunda and Platt/Clark landing, Mr. Florance stated that they were interior spaces not separately designated under the Act.

Discussion

Pursuant to D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1104(e), before the Mayor or his designated agent may issue a permit to demolish a historic landmark or a building in a historic district, the Mayor shall find that issuance of the permit is necessary in the public interest, or that failure to issue a permit shall result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner. The term "necessary in the public interest" means consistent with the purposes of the Act as set forth in D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1101(b) or to allow a project of "special merit." See D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1102(10). The term "special merit" means a plan or building having significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, special features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services. See D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1102(11).

When the Council of the District of Columbia adopted the Act, the Council envisioned the Mayor’s Agent balancing the special merit of a proposed project against the historic value of existing historic buildings, because only projects that offer significant benefits to the District of Columbia or the community, can readily offset the Council’s recited public policy in favor of protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating the use of properties with historical, cultural and aesthetic merit. See Committee of 100 on the Federal City v. D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 571 A.2d 195, 200 (D.C. 1990). See also Don’t Tear It Down, Inc. v. D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development, 428 A.2d 369, 373 (D.C. 1981). The Mayor’s Agent’s decision on special merit must reflect a trade-off between the value of the existing structure and the value of what would be constructed in its place if demolition is allowed to proceed. Id. Furthermore, factors which are common to all projects are not considered as special merits. See Legislative History to Bill 2-367, “The Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978”, at p. 6. See also Committee of 100 on the Federal City, 571 A.2d at 200.

The party applying to demolish historic property must show that it considered alternatives to demolition of the historic building, and that “no reasonable alternative economic use for the property exists.” Kalorama Heights Ltd. Partnership v. D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 655 A.2d 865, 871 (D.C. 1990). The Applicant is not entitled to conclude that there are no alternatives to demolition simply because demolition is the least expensive alternative. See Don't Tear it Down, Inc. 428 A.2d at 379-80.

The determination by HPRB on a matter within its expertise has been accorded considerable deference. See Committee for Washington's Riverfront Parks v. Thompson, 451 A.2d 1177, 1194 (D.C. 1982). Moreover, while the views on a project by the CFA are advisory only, they can certainly serve as factors in the Mayor’s Agent decision. See generally Don't Tear It Down, Inc , supra.

It is important to emphasize that the Corcoran is without doubt itself “exemplary architecture” as its status as both a national and local historic landmark attests. Moreover, the interior elements that the Applicant proposes to demolish – especially the Rotunda and the Platt/Clark landing – have been regarded as important contributing factors to the landmark, although the protected landmark status of the exterior of the building does not extend to such undesignated interior elements. The Mayor’s Agent thus believes that the special merit of the Applicant’s project must be very significant in order to warrant the proposed demolition. Still, the Mayor’s Agent determines, based upon the substantial evidence in the record of the “exemplary architecture” of the new addition, that the Applicant has met its burden of proof that its project is one of special merit, warranting issuance of the demolition permit.

The evidence presented by the Applicant and its expert witnesses demonstrates that, because of the landmark status of the Corcoran building and the subsequent desire to minimize demolition to meet the programmatic and other needs of the Applicant, a number of design alternatives were evaluated and carefully analyzed before the selection of the current design. Moreover, the Mayor’s Agent is satisfied that the selected design was not chosen solely because of alleged cost efficiencies. Rather, the Mayor’s Agent believes that the substantial evidence of record indicates that the selected design provides the appropriate balance of a number of interests: a) exceptional, innovative architecture that is well integrated with the current landmark; b) the preservation of as much of the landmark building as reasonable; c) the programmatic needs of the Applicant, which includes an enhancement and expansion of its outreach programs, which have significant social, cultural, and educational benefits to the community; d) the project costs; and e) fulfillment of the planning policies for the downtown, and incorporation of the interests of the immediately surrounding neighborhood. [4]

Regarding the impact of the new addition on the landmark L’Enfant Plan, the Mayor’s Agent finds substantial evidence that neither the proposed projections nor the existing ones are incompatible with the L'Enfant Plan. Moreover, the Mayor’s Agent is persuaded by the Applicant’s evidence that the character of New York Avenue west of the White House has developed differently from the original intention of the L'Enfant Plan, thereby accommodating the new addition. The Mayor’s Agent determines that the 160-foot wide breadth of New York Avenue will remain intact and can amply support the proposed projections. Over 37 feet will still remain between the street curb and the building projection, and the existing 17.5-foot sidewalk width will be maintained along New York Avenue in its entirety.

Although the Mayor’s Agent attaches great importance to the recommendation of the HPRB to deny the partial demolition permit, he is equally persuaded by the HPRB’s reasoning on the compelling design of the new addition in its staff’s report on conceptual design approval. In relevant part, the staff report adopted by the HPRB, states the following:

“[W]hile the historic preservation guidelines stress the compatibility of additions, it does not necessarily serve the purposes of preservation (to say nothing of design) to oppose attempts at very fresh, contemporary architectural expressions in the urban environment, especially when they can read from the exterior as essentially separate structures. What better location for an impressive and very contemporary building than at a museum and school of the visual arts in the monumental core of Washington? . . . Adding a watered-down classical background addition would be a legitimate alternative, but the present proposal is arguably as good an option, and undoubtedly a more interesting one.”

The HPRB’s positive views on the design of the new addition are shared by the Office of Planning, which stated that the proposed design is precisely the type of “exemplary” architecture contemplated by the special merit provision of the Act. The CFA similarly found the design of the new addition to be sufficiently exemplary to approve it without reservation. Finally, the Mayor’s Agent also recognizes the unconditional support and approval of the new addition by ANC 2A, to which the Mayor’s Agent must give great weight.

Based upon the substantial evidence in the record, the Mayor’s Agent determines that the proposed new addition embodies exemplary architecture, in both the quality and aesthetics of its architectural expression and its programmatic vision for an art gallery and school. In addition to its exemplary design and appearance, the project will allow the Corcoran to enhance and expand its educational and outreach programs, which have significant social, cultural and educational benefits to the community. The project will also bring to the city the work of an internationally-acclaimed architect, thereby promoting and enhancing the city's role as a leading international arts and cultural center.

Finally, the project is entirely compatible with the design and planning policies for the downtown.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Mayor's Agent now makes the following Conclusions of Law:

1. Pursuant to D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1104(e), the issuance of the permit to demolish a portion the Corcoran Gallery of Art, an individually designated historic landmark, is necessary in the public interest. Although the removal of the Rotunda and Clark Landing will be regrettable losses to the Corcoran as we currently know it, these interior spaces are not separately designated by either the Act or the District of Columbia, and their loss through demolition, will allow for the retention and enhancement of the landmark and accommodate its readaption for both current and future uses.

2. The term "necessary in the public interest" means consistent with the purposes of the Act as set forth in D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1101(b) or to allow a project of "special merit." See also D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1102(10). As well, the original Flagg Building and its 1927 Platt Addition still await the long contemplated, but never added third component, i.e., the Gehry Addition, and without it, the gallery remains incomplete within the context of the Applicant’s long term plan. This aspect is still true, despite the interim of more than 100 years between the grand opening of the original building, and this highly anticipated, but long delayed final addition.

3. The term "special merit" means a plan or building having significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, special features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services. See D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1102(11). These two Applications should be granted on the basis of their special merit as defined by the Act.

4. The proposed addition will have significant benefits to the community by virtue of its special features of land planning and other social benefits having a high priority for community services. The project will bring to the National Capital city the work of an internationally-acclaimed architect enhance Washington’s role as a leading arts and cultural center of the world, and promote the economic and cultural well-being of the city through increased tourism. The addition will also allow for significant restoration, renovation and rehabilitation of the landmark building, returning 14 galleries from the Flagg Building to art-related uses, after they have been hidden from public view for many decades. The effect will be increased and sustained significant and substantial benefits to the community, having a high priority for the city as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.

5. There is substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding that the Applicant’s proposal to construct a new addition to the Corcoran, requiring the demolition of part of the landmark building, including the Rotunda and the Platt/Clark landing, is “necessary in the public interest” as a project of “special merit” on the basis of its exemplary architecture, as well as a project which provides significant benefits to the District of Columbia through its educational and outreach programs. See D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1102(11).

6. Because these Applications have been granted on the basis of being a project that is necessary in the public interest, and likewise being a project of special merit, it is not necessary for the Mayor’s Agent to also address the additional issue of whether the granting of these Applications and the project that will result, are also consistent with the purposes of the Act.

ORDERED, that H.P.A. Application #02-284, for the demolition of part of the Corcoran Gallery of Art at 500 17th Street, N.W., be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED; and, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, S.L Application #02-037, for new construction, be, and the same is hereby GRANTED; and, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1104(h), the demolition permit shall not be issued unless a permit for new construction is issued simultaneously under D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1107, and the Applicant demonstrates the ability to complete the project; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to D.C. Code, Sec. 6-1112(a), this Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after issuance.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 19th day of September, 2002, I mailed by either e-mail or regular first-class mail, the foregoing Decision and Order to the following persons:

[1] Four post-hearing submissions were received by the Mayor’s Agent: 1) Applicant’s Proposed Final Order; 2) Applicant’s legal argument that this application for partial demolition is consistent with the purposes of the Act; 3) A submission from Bruce Brennan, Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel on behalf of the Office of Planning and the Historic Preservation Review Board, dated May 22, 2002; and 4) A submission from Andrea Ferster, Esquire, dated May 16, 2002, on behalf of The Committee of 100 on the Federal City. Each addressed the following specific issue raised by the Applicant (and contested by the opposition) in the course of and after the hearing: whether, as a separate and distinct ground for approval of the project under the Act, the Applicant’s project, involving demolition of certain elements of the current national landmark building, was “consistent with the purposes of the Act.” Because the Mayor’s Agent has determined that the Applicant’s project is “necessary in the public interest” based on its exemplary architecture and the substantial evidence in the record of such exemplary architecture, and because this aesthetic ground constitutes an independent legal basis under the Act for approval of the Applicant’s project, the Mayor’s Agent deems it unnecessary and unwarranted to address Applicant’s request for additional approval of the project as “consistent with the purposes of the Act.” Finally, although the legal basis of the “special merit” determination in this case is the new addition’s exemplary architecture, the Mayor’s Agent’s decision addresses and, at times, incorporates evidence that is also supportive of the Applicant’s other “special merit” claim - that the project has “social and other benefits having a high priority for community services.”

[2] The HPRB staff report also stated in relevant part that, “ … while the historic preservation guidelines stress the compatibility of additions, it does not necessarily serve the purposes of preservation (to say nothing of design) to oppose attempts at very fresh, contemporary architectural expressions in the urban environment, especially when they can read from the exterior as essentially separate structures. What better location for an impressive and very contemporary building than at a museum and school of the visual arts in the monumental core of Washington? . . . . Adding a watered-down classical background addition would be a legitimate alternative, but the present proposal is arguably as good an option, and undoubtedly a more interesting one. The excellent original building can hold its own against the flamboyant addition. The addition, on the other hand, stands up to the taller and less imaginative and skillful office buildings directly to the north and west.”

[3] Because of the magnitude of these Applications, and different amounts of square footage being referenced at different places in the Applications, the Mayor’s Agent found it difficult to reconcile a more specific estimate as to how much square footage would be removed as a result of the demolition, and how much new net gain square footage would be created. At any rate, the Mayor’s Agent is satisfied that the loss of square footage as a result of the partial demolition, will more than be well offset by the significant increase in the total square footage as a result of the granting of this Application.

[4] The Applicant’s suggestion that demolition of the Rotunda and the Platt/Clark landing may be required because of their alleged lack of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is not persuasive. As the Committee of 100 contends, there are well-established exceptions to ADA requirements for historic buildings that may apply to the Rotunda and the Platt/Clark landing.