The Kennedy Center has tweaked its plans for expansion. The small addition will still connect the Kennedy Center to the Potomac River, but none of it will be floating in the river.
The revised expansion scheme for the Kennedy Center. All images courtesy of the Kennedy Center and Steven Holl Architects.
When the arts center released plans for an expansion in 2013, they were looking for a way to reach out beyond big white box and white tie events. The
60,000 square foot expansion was to contain education rooms, informal performance venues, and a bridge to the Potomac River pathway.
The Kennedy Center’s balcony has a gorgeous view of the river, but with no way for visitors to get to it, it’s just the backdrop to the lobby. The center has tried to bridge the divide for decades with several schemes for grand staircases. But they had proved too costly for the Kennedy Center to do without federal help.
View looking from across the bridge down to the Potomac and Rock Creek Trail.
The cafe and performance space that occupied the floating structure will now go in a third pavilion east of Rock Creek parkway. The multipurpose space will seat 160 people in a space with views of the river. Toward the land, the pavilion overlooks a reflecting pool through a retractable glass wall.
Moving that pavilion makes it harder to spontaneously drop into a show. On the other hand, the architects noted that it will make back-of-house activities like cooking and moving instruments easier since the new location sits atop the expansion’s buried infrastructure.
The reorganization does change the the way the site connects to the city. The new location of the river pavilion may make the upper-level garden feel more enclosed and internal. On the other hand, since visitors won’t have to pass through the floating pavilion to get to the upper-level park it may feel more public.
Opposition arose during the federal process
The National Capital Planning Commission’s professional staff supported the original design on the basis of extensive engineering studies. But at NCPC’s December 2014 meeting, testimony from recreational boaters and Georgetown residents persuaded commissioners to rejected the staff report and give only partial approval.
Critics singled out the floating pavilion as a problem. The NCPC’s chairman, Preston Bryant, who represents Virginia, said he believed the building went against federal directives not to build in flood-prone areas.
Boaters and Georgetown residents favored an alternate scheme that did not put any structures near the river, including the bridge across the parkway. This second design came from the project’s environmental assessment, which requires federal agencies to study a few alternative solutions to their needs. For buildings of this size, the second or third designs are usually just a formality. Not here.
The revised scheme uses the environmental assessment’s Alternative B as a starting point, but adds the bridge and landscaped ramp. When the architects presented this design at the May 7th NCPC meeting, several commissioners who had criticized the design earlier reacted positively, indicating future approval.
View up the access ramp and toward Georgetown.
There’s still a long road ahead of the project
The change in the design means delays. Peter May, the National Park Service’s representative on the NCPC noted that the Park Service would have to re-do parts of its environmental assessment and cultural resource studies because the connection to the park is too different from any of the original alternatives to proceed.
May suggested that there could be a separate study for the bridge, allowing the Kennedy Center to proceed with construction. Still the Commission of Fine Arts will have to grant a second conceptual approval to the design, the architects will have to work out some of the design again. For this and other reasons, the Kennedy Center expansion won’t open until 2018.
Washington’s process is difficult. Still, this project’s arc shows that it is possible to bring distinctive architecture and placemaking to the Monumental Core, with the right attitude. The designers and their client didn’t simply do what critics asked, or fight back endlessly. They relied on their expertise to do it in a way that is true to the rest of the design. That is hard, and they deserve credit for it.