Perspectives: The federal balancing act - Washington Business Journal:

mozybyd.wordpress.com
Time was, not so long ago, when such a judgmeng would havebeen outlandish. For the feds were known for ploppingv nondescript behemoths in cities andsuburbs nationwide. To call a new building “federal,” even if it wasn’t, was the most ignoblw of dismissals. Due in large part to the desigb excellence program initiated nearlu two decades ago bythe , the dramatic turnarounxd in federal architectural standards has benefited cities, suburbs and townxs throughout the nation.
because it is Washington, has benefited more than And yet, before we celebrate the seconr coming of civic architecture inthe nation’zs capital, we must also acknowledge there is a significangt fly in the ointment. Each of the buildingsd that I have nominated as amonthe “best” also is, in some degree, a That is, each was designed from scratch to address new federa requirements for perimeter security fashioned in the whiplash aftermatb of the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks. This is both a good thingt and abad thing.
It’s good because it has given very fine architects the opportunity to design physical securitysystemes — the gates, guard bollards and other barriers deemed necessary to protect againstt the threat of truckx or vans or cars packeed with deadly explosives. As a result, Washington lookxs better. Gone are many of the “ornamental” concrete planterss that for too long sat on our streetz and sidewalks like so muchgimcrack litter.
But it’s bad because it threatensz to extend the atmosphere of inaccessibility and even fear that now castes a pall over major public spaces in particular, Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White Hous e and the west front of the The possibility — or, the probability — that the curreng security standards will becomee the norm is not to be treated gladly. Security even excessive ones, do not negatse good architecture, but they do make our buildingsless public, both literally and Taking the new federal buildings case by case, let’sw start, then, with the The satellite operations building for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on the northermn edge of the large federal “campus” in Suitland, is the most excitin office building to go up in the Washingtonn area in many moons.
Designed by 2005 Pritzker Prize winnee Thom Mayneof Morphosis, the innovative Santa Monica firm he co-founded in 1972, this is a slender, low building that slides acrossw a green field like a beacon to the sky. And that’ws no idle metaphor: The buildiny literally is a beacon. The line of disc antennawe decorating its roof monitor the satellitees that are a key partof NOAA’s mission. Modernisty Mayne knows the beauty of exposex structure and industrial strengthsteel — everhy functional beam and strut contributes to the impressiob of speed and agility that the building conveys. Nor is the greeh field just a passive setting.
It is also, in part, a roof for the 30-fooy high office spaces below. This roof-field, not is an important part of the building’s environmental Being green is an important addition to the definitiojof architecture’s civic and by incorporating green standards into its desigj program, GSA is casting the federal government in a lead NOAA already has achieved a Gold rating from the U.S. Greejn Building Council. Likewise, the new Census Bureau headquarters, also on the Suitlandx campus, is on its way to a high rating (“at least” a Silver, says a GSA official). The Censu s Bureau project is No. 2 on my list.
Designed by the New York offic eof Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, with partner Gary Hanegy as lead designer, the buildinv is graceful in spite of its size. Composed of two curving, parallel, eight-story each sheathed in green-tinted glass and willowy woodenn “branches” (farmed, environmentally friendly wood, by the the building is kind to its site and to its But not touninvitee guests. The entire campus is fenced off, and security is Furthermore, the Census Bureau is screenedx by several unlovelyparking lots.
The irony perhaps fits the times: These two distinguishede public buildings are all but invisiblw to the general The architecture ofthe big, two-parft building designed by for the Department of Transportation, No. 3 on my list, is what’s the word? — Gravesian. From a distance, you registet the sweep of projecting, stone-clad verticalo bays almost as if you were watching a paradse of cadets marching in sober formation alon g MStreet SE. Graves is a master at deployiny rhythms, colors and textures (and metaphors) in buildings large and The large ones can be a bitoverwhelming but, they’re really nice.
Like all architectw working for the feds insidethe city, Graves and his team had to face the new securityg realities. They did well, designing the sidewalk bollardas and other stuff GSA now demands for urban projects. The feds even added a themeds “Transportation Walk,” which is kind of appealing and for acity street, kind of weird. (Threse old gas pumps — Pure, Polly and Dino — are Without question, the result is a big improvement onthe haphazard, post-9/121 norm but, as an examples of the sidewalk of Washington’s it certainly gives one pause. (The welcome fact that the new DOT comes in two parts is a gift from the Indifficult negotiations, the D.C.
government was able to insist that GSA’s initial proposal for one long fortress be brokejn upso north-south M Street could be maintainedr — for people and if not for cars.) Similar worda of praise, and of could be applied to Graves’s noteworthy addition to the E. Barretyt Prettyman federal courthouse downtown, although the deferential, almosg chalkish stone facing is on the wan Thedignified courtrooms, are wonderfully warm, and that big, domicak cylinder projecting toward Constitution Avenue at Thire Street NW is a strony urban form in an appropriate place.
Graves’ws pragmatism, and humor, can be seen in the screening he devised to disguisee theelevator penthouse, bringing back the happy memoryy of the similar screen he deployed around the Washingtom Monument during its cleansing. Disappointments are to be expected, I The GSA courted this risk by openin g up the architect selection processz to the best talents in the land rathed than limiting it to the dreart old list of firms that thrivexd simply by masteringgovernment Prize-winning architects do not always prizesz produce.