Page images

Mr. LANGEN. Just how much would that include? Mr. HENLOCK. In the case of the extension of the Capitol it included the extension of the east-central front of the Capitol and the extension, reconstruction or replacement of the west-central front of the Capitol; it further included the subway terminal put under the Senate wing of the Capitol as part of the extension project and it would have included the underground garages under the plaza had that part of the project been carried forward or if it should be in the future. They are the main components of work that were covered.

Mr. LANGEN. So that now you have identified all of the items that might have been included under that authorization?

Mr. HENLOCK. That is correct. I have not missed any, hare I, Mr. Campioli? Mr. CAMPIOLI. No, sir. Mr. LANGEN. All right.

Now, then, in view of the need for some work to be done, obviously, on the west front of the Capitol, what happened during the last year? Have things gotten worse or better since it was shored up? Have they substantially improved ? Have they been standing up good ? Have any changes taken place?

Mr. STEWART. We have been compelled to go back and tighten up that temporary bracing or adjust them. After the model was completed and put on display, we felt we had completed all action authorized by the Congress. We are now awaiting direction to seek further appropriations to carry on the work. If the work is not going forward within the next few years, we should again repoint and repaint that section; however, the Congress disallowed the latter item a few years ago in view of the pending program.

Mr. LANGEN. As of now, the shoring that has been made seems to be standing up with temporary satisfaction.

Mr. STEWART. Insofar as we can determine but, of course, there is occasionally a piece of the stone that will fall of. This is dangerous. Some has fallen off and fell as far as 15 or 20 feet from the building, which shows that the heat of the sun could cause this to happen by concentrating on a joint that had some mortar in it and creating enough of an expansion to throw the stone out that far.


Mr. CAMPIOLI. About 30,000. That figure consists of architects, students, and other members.

Mr. LANGEN. So that they have a membership of 30,000 architects throughout the entire Nation?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir; architects and students.
Mr. LANGEN. And students?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANGEN. What percentage of the total architects is this?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. I would say it is the majority of the architects in the country.

Mr. LANGEN. And they have a set of officers, a board of directors, or an organization that operates like many other organizations representing a particular group?

Mr. LANGEN. And their recommendation, which has already been referred to, has been adverse to the extension of the west front; is that correct?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. That is right.

Mr. STEWART. Congressman Langen, if I may, I would like to have Mr. Campioli tell you about another architectural organization that is in existence and is very much in favor of what we want to do on the west side. Would you explain it, Mario?

Mr. LANGEN. We would like to have your comments.


Mr. CAMPIOLI. There is another group called the American Registered Architects. Their representatives have come to our office and indicated they resented the AIA representing the opinion in the press of all the architects of the country. They said, “We resent having other people making up our minds. We would like to investigate this project ourselves firsthand and we would like to make our own determinations. Maybe we will agree with them, maybe we will not." The head of the organization also came to our office and was given the same tour that was given to the AIA group. As a result of that tour he appointed a committee to investigate the matter and they later prepared a report endorsing the extension plans.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield. Mr. LANGEN. Be glad to. Mr. ANDREWS. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. LANGEN. Could we ask that that letter from the ARA be placed in the record at this point? (The information follows:)


Washington, D.C., June 28, 1966. Hon. J. GEORGE STEWART, Architect of the Capitol, Member, Commission for Extension of the United States

Capitol, Capitol Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. STEWART: The Society of American Registered Architects has appointed a committee of nine architects to evaluate the controversy regarding the proposed extension of the West Front of the Capitol.

There is enclosed a copy of the unanimous resolution of this committee.
For the Committee,

FRANCIS L. KOENIG, A.R.A., Chairman.


OF AMERICAN REGISTERED ARCHITECTS Whereas: members of this committee have visited the United States Capitol Building, have seen the tragic deterioration and dangerous conditions existing, have talked with the Architect of the Capitol and architect members of his staff and have been given for study and examination, plans, engineering reports and wall samples and

Whereas: the urgent need of additional centrally located space at the Capitol was convincingly demonstrated by the Capitol Architects staff and

Whereas: engineering reports by nationally recognized firms, after exhaustive investigation of every conceivable manner of correcting the structural deficiencies now threatening the entire west front of the building, recommend an addition to the building as the only feasible solution and

Whereas: the design of the proposed addition is in the hands of capable and dedicated registered staff architects, five associate architects and three advisory architects whose qualifications are nationally recognized and

Whereas: a physical inspection by committee members of marble replicas on the once controversial East Front, of the original deteriorated sandstone carvings with their fifty coats of gray paint, leaves no doubt concerning the improved appearance of these priceless details and

Whereas: after a review of the plans the committee is of the opinion that the 246,000 square feet of additional space to be provided fills needs expressed by the Congress and aids substantially in circulation now hampered by throngs of visitors and

Whereas: a review of the exterior design of the proposed facade with its new pediment and rearrangement of exterior stairways leads the committee to the conclusion that the proposed alteration is a distinct design improvement over the existing elevation.

Now therefore be it resolved, that this committee endorses without hestitation the proposal of the Architect of the Capitol and the associate and advisory architects to correct the condition of a crumbling Capitol by extending the West Front as proposed, accomplishing at the same time the addition of needed space and the preservation for posterity in marble, the architectural details that are now lost in crumbling sandstone and paint and

Be it further resolved, that this resolution be brought to the attention of the members of the Society with the suggestion that any members of the Society with the suggestion that any member who can, would do well to accept the invitation of the Architect of the Capitol to personally visit the staff, see the problems and examine in depth, the proposed solution. For the Committee,

FRANCIS L. KOENIG, A.R.A., Chairman. Mr. LANGEN. How big is that organization ? Mr. CAMPIOLI, About 2,500 to 3,000.

Mr. LANGEN. In view of this controversy have there been any other architects that have expressed a substantial interest in performing the work, or have expressed an idea that the west front might either be extended or it might be repaired as it is, that have been substantial enough so that it has attracted the attention of those that are concerned with it?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. There have been architects that have come to our office and expressed their support but who have no connections with our work. Two of them are former presidents of the American Institute of Architects who have endorsed our extension plans.


Mr. LANGEN. I am not particularly concerned about those that may have expressed an interest in support of the plan that everybody here seems to be in agreement with. I am, rather, wondering whether there has been anybody that has submitted an alternative plan.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. The so-called restoration recommended by the AIA task force has been the only other alternative. Mr. LANGEN. It has been the only alternative? Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. Mr. LANGEN. The restoration, again, has not been explored to the point where we have anything that resembles a reliable figure as to cost?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. No, sir.

Mr. LANGEN. Or as to what the accomplishment of the restoration would be ?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. At the time Dr. Clair was engaged to prepare the study of the condition of the west central front we did not tell him

we wanted a report that would indicate an extension. We asked him to investigate the project and to advise whether the west front could be restored, preserved, refaced, reconstructed or whether it required extension in order to solve the structural defect. He analyzed each one of these alternatives and then gave the reasons why he did not recomInend the alternatives. I believe he considered these four other alternatives. He then came to the conclusion that the extension was the procedure we should recommend to safeguard the building.

Mr. LANGEN. So that then in this report there is a substantial reference to the inadequacies of restoration or the other plans. I would think they ought to be included in the record so that there would be a clearcut definition that attention has been directed to other possibilities of restoration, and so on. Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. Without objection, that report will go in the record.

(NOTE.—A summary of the engineering report appears earlier herein.)

Mr. ĆAMPIOLI. The summary statement that the chairman requested earlier would indicate these alternatives.

Mr. LANGEN. And the considerations that were directed to them? Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANGEN. In the event that any further consideration—and obviously there is—is given to it, what is the procedure from here on?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. The authorization the Commission would have to give would be for us to request funds to authorize the associate architects to proceed with contract drawings and specifications.

Mr. LANGEN. But it has to find the approval of several boards?
Mr. HENLOCK. Just the one Commission.
Mr. LANGEN. Just the one Commission?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. The Commission on the Extension of the Capitol project, plus the approval of funds by the Appropriations Committees.

ARCHITECT'S FEE Mr. LANGEN. I noted the reference, to the 20 percent of architect's fees. How did that get into the discussion? I just do not remember it now.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. That was 20 percent of the architect's total fee developed for the preliminary work alone.

Mr. LANGEN. For the preliminary plans ?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANGEN. So that this would be a part of the total fee in the event that the plans should one day become a reality?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. That previous discussion was with relation to the Madison Memorial Library but we applied the same formula in connection with the extension of the west front of the Capitol and in both cases the lump sum arrangement that we made is less than the 20 percent of what their total fee would be. Mr.LANGEN. That 20 percent is of what total?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. In the early stage we had an approximate idea of the total cost of this construction. I do not have those figures with me bnt as I recall we used a figure in the neighborhood of $30 million as the possible cost of this extension and computed a fee on that basis.

Mr. LANGEN. Then the architect's percentage of the $30 million is what?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. On this project it would be possibly 7 percent on total contract costs of the work.

Mr. LANGEN. This figure would be 20 percent of the about 7 percent times the total figure?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. The cost of the preliminary work would be absorbed in the ultimate total fee if the project proceeds.

Mr. LANGEN. Now, then, the cost of the model causes some controversy. How did it come about? Is it a part of this 20-percent figure?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. It was a part of that original amount that was authorized for the preliminary work.

Mr. LANGEN. It was identified as a separate cost figure?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes sir. It was a part of the $300,000 figure that Congress provided and was contracted for separately on the basis of competitive bids.

Mr. LANGEN. I find something unique about this. Part of the design of this model now becomes separated from the rest of the plans in that it was contracted for separately?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANGEN. You did not contract for the $300,000 or the original plan to begin with. How come the contract for making the model ?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Rather than pay the associate architects for the model we elected to handle it ourselves directly

Mr. LANGEN. Is not the model pretty closely associated with any plans?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. The associate architects submitted the plans to us for the model so that we could take bids on the model based on the approved design.

Mr. LANGEN. If you took contracts and bids on the model, why not take contracts and bids on the entire architectural plan, to begin with!

Mr. CAMPIOLI. As I mentioned earlier, up until the present time it has been considered unethical by the architectural profession to take competitive bids for professional services, no more than a person who needs an operation would take competitive bids from surgeons, or competitive bids from lawyers for their professional work. Mr. LANGEN. The making of the model is not professional?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. The architects do not as a rule make the finished model. In this case professional modelmakers were asked to bid on the construction of this model based on the approved designs prepared by the associate architects.

Mr. LANGEN. So that it involves nothing more than just producing a model in compliance with plans as designed by the architects, to begin with; is that correct?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. It was for that reason that we felt we could contract for the model ourselves rather than make that work a part of the architects' fee.

Mr. LANGEN. Now, those contracts, are they made by architectural firms?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. No, sir; these are made with professional model makers.

Mr. LANGER. And they perform in that business separate from architects?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. They render that service to architects in many cases. If an architect has a contract that includes a model, as

« PreviousContinue »