For example, most universities, towns, and cities of consequence have recognized the benefits of a master plan. Congress has insisted that comprehensive master planning be accomplished before Federal funds are granted for interstate highways, model cities, and other development programs. Yet no such plan exists for Capitol Hill.

Why [one Congressman has asked] should this 131 acres known as Capitol Hill be excluded and denied the benefits of comprehensive master planning which Congress in its wisdom . . . felt was an indispensable condition to their spending a dime of Federal funds to help any city?

Congress should have an orderly plan for the development of the Capitol grounds and contiguous areas. The cost of creating an excellent plan would be far less than the amount which will be spent unnecessarily without one.

The Congress in the past has considered legislation to establish a Commission on Architecture and Planning. The Commission, to be composed of highly experienced professionals, would supervise the implementation of a master plan and would pass on the design of buildings on Capitol Hill. We believe the legislation has a great deal of merit. Accordingly, we strongly urge that the Commission on Architecture and Planning bill be reintroduced and enacted.

At this time, I would like to call upon George Hartman to comment on some additional aspects of the proposed west front extension. George?

Mr. HARTMAN. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I have a prepared statement which I would like to include in the record at this point.

Senator HOLLINGS. It will be included.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF GEORGE HARTMAN

We are now approaching the 100th anniversary of the first proposal to extend the West Front of the U.S. Capitol Building, first initiated by Thomas U. Walter when the unconventional character of this elevation first became

apparent with the completion of the dome. There is, however, an important difference between the current proposal to destroy the last remaining facade of the original Capitol, now 144 years old, and Walter's plan of 1874. At that time the West facade, completed in 1829, was less than 50 years old. Walter himself had added the two wings in the 1850's and the dome during 1856-65. It was only logical that he and his immediate successors would propose bringing the building into a traditional, classical balance by extending the West Front. However, this possibility was permanently abandoned with the addition of the Olmsted terraces in 1884-92.

During the 1880's Olmsted made several studies for extensions to the West Front before deciding on the West terraces. In fact, his surviving drawings show almost every conceivable variation ever proposed by anyone, including the suggestions of Bulfinch, Walter, and Clark, in addition to his own. These studies ranged from major extensions of the facade to mere facelifts achieved through the addition of pediments. Yet the terraces as built do not allow or provide for any extension of the West Front. Why did Olmsted, whose farsighted vision was large enough to include the design of Central Park in New York City, not allow for the extension of the facade when he executed

the west terraces?

The answer lies in an analysis of the West elevation itself. Walter's dome is by far the most prominent and important aspect of the Capitol Building. Since Capitol Hill falls off rapidly to the west, any addition would project into the sight lines of the dome when seen from below and would lessen the present dramatic visual impact of the dome when seen from the west. The proposed

extension would destroy the delicate proportions that now exist between the Capitol dome and its supporting base. Furthermore, any addition would tend to unify the center with the two wings, and integrate the entire structure into one massive block. To see this effect, compare the regularity of the existing East elevation with the articulation of the existing West facade, while realizing that the current proposal pushes parts of the West Front as far in front of the wings as it is now behind them. (Demonstrated with drawings.)

The current massing of the Capitol is the result of a most fortunate series of accidents, as are many of the world's most successful monuments. It ranks with Renwick's Smithsonian, Mullet's State, War and Navy Building, and Meig's Pension Building, as being of unquestionable aesthetic value. No one would any longer seriously propose demolishing the Smithsonian to regularize the Mall, or remodeling the Executive Office Building to match the Treasury. Contemporary planning does not require stylistic continuity through the purging of the past. The Capitol's west elevation, deliberately preserved for over a hundred years following Olmsted's aesthetic decision, should not be destroyed through the relentless demands for space and efficiency, and then justified as being the realization of Walter's original plan.

The very real requirements for additional space can be met in other ways. Certainly, the current space requirements can be successfully met without sacrificing the West Front. Like it or not, this building is now a monument, albeit a working monument and there is no such thing as an efficient or economical monument. Any extension or alteration we make to this building will become a symbol of our attitude toward our heritage.

-

The most immediately apparent alternative to the extension of the West Front as currently proposed, is the development of an underground complex beneath Capitol Hill. Because it will not be seen, it offers the unprecedented advantage of allowing a symmetrical building to respond to an unsymmetrical

need for space. This approach, together with a much-needed remodeling and better utilization of existing spaces, promises to provide enough additional space for the foreseeable future. (This was clearly not the case in the extension of the East Front and is no more likely with that of the West Front.) If the same space were dug into the hill alongside either side of the Capitol Building, the majority of the offices would be nearer the two chambers in terms of walking distance and travel time than they would be in the proposed West Front extension. Similar underground development beneath the East Plaza would provide space in flexible configurations to meet the differing needs of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Furthermore, it is unquestionably less expensive to build and operate underground facilities than it is similar ones above ground. This development, should it be accepted, is also consistent with meeting the service and communication needs of the entire Capitol Hill complex, while simplifying the problems of the existing surface traffic. Moreover, it is a thoroughly contemporary solution which, while providing exactly the space that is needed where it is needed, is also completely compatible with, and even respectful of, the past.

The current proposal to extend the West Front is historically, aesthetically, and monetarily wasteful. We recommend that the West Front be restored as soon as possible and that all new construction be deferred until it can be integrated into a long-range plan for all of Capitol Hill.