The FBI is decamping from its headquarters in the J. Edgar Hoover building, leaving the deteriorating 1974 brutalist building and its site on Pennsylvania Avenue up for reinvention. You can weigh in on what comes next for the site.
The FBI has decided that the poor state of the existing building, claustrophobic offices, and extensive security requirements make this urban site a bad location for the police agency. The FBI has asked the General Services Administration, the landlord to federal agencies, to replace it. To keep costs down, the GSA is trying to negotiate a land swap in either Landover, Greenbelt, or Springfield.
Whether the FBI building becomes apartments, offices, or an institution depends heavily on special rules for the properties lining Pennsylvania Avenue. Called “square guidelines,” the ones for the Hoover building’s site are specific to the FBI, so the National Capital Planning Commission is is revising them for whoever occupies the building in the future. Meetings on Tuesday and Thursday are the only time the public will be able to give input before NCPC drafts the new guidelines.
To execute the deal, the GSA has to make a clear offer for what can go at the downtown site. They’re doing that through these square guidelines, created in the 1970s by a congressional organization, the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation.
The work of the PADC, like Pershing Park and Market Square, was a dramatic shift away from the grandiose official spaces that planners pushed in the first 70 years of the 20th century, into mixed uses and intimate spaces. To balance private development and public space, they created the guidelines. (A “square” is just a real estate term for a block; every lot in DC is part of a “square.”)
The Hoover building will be a hot site for developers no matter what. But when it comes to how the building is use, the stakes are even higher for the public.
What kind of activities could happen there?
Under the new zoning code, the site will fall under the D-7 downtown zone district. That means a hotel or office space would be allowed to take up 10 times the amount of ground space the building covers, but that residential units could take up even more.
Because of that D-7 classification, residential development on the site wouldn’t be subject to affordable housing requirements or bonuses. Maybe this should be an exception. Similarly, the swanky location could lend itself to development as investment properties, but those wouldn’t lend themselves to street life. Are there ways to avoid that?
Perhaps there are other uses, like theaters, social organizations, or cultural programs that could be encouraged.
What will the actual building look like?
The square guidelines dictate a lot about urban form. One big decision is whether to divide the site. Technically, it’s already two blocks: the much bigger Square 378 north of D Street, and the triangular Square 379 along Pennsylvania Avenue. The site will probably end up being multiple buildings, but what about rebuilding D Street to Pennsylvania Ave?
On one hand, that’s an opportunity to add connectivity and increase the amount of retail. It might also limit the opportunity to build the northern square to the unusual 160’ height permitted along Pennsylvania Avenue.
What percentage of the space should be open space? A public market used to stand nearby; perhaps Is a semi-private court like CityCenter the answer? Should the Pennsylvania Avenue side be more formal, and set back, while the E Street side might be more informal an commercial? Does the site need a commemorative space, like the nearby Navy Memorial?
How sustainable should it be?
Sustainability wasn’t covered by the 1974 rules, but they could now. Given Climate change and the region’s water quality issues, it’s definitely one now. Whether it’s requiring a low carbon impact, cleaning the air with plants, or managing runoff effectively, there are a lot of issues.
An opportunity to go beyond the easily gamed LEED system, and to ask for a measurable sign of sustainability, like some portion of the Living Building Challenge, or a concrete goal like net-zero energy use
On the other hand, there’s a risk of adding tokens of sustainability that cost more than they’re worth. The density and high energy efficiency the District requires may be enough of an environmental benefit.
Another possibility is preserving portions of the existing building, to save on expending new energy and carbon emissions? That will only make a difference if the energy to heat, cool, and light the building is dramatically lower than it is today. What parts of the building can be saved?
How the site connects to the rest of the city
The project also has implications for the Department of Labor’s Frances Perkins Building, which the GSA is also looking to exchange. Integrated into the I-395 highway running beneath it, it also faces its surrounding streets with high walls and gloomy overhangs. Worse, even though it covers the highway, it blocks both C St. and Indiana Avenue.
With the massive Capitol Crossing development over the highway two blocks north, the replacement of the Perkins building presents similar potentials for adding downtown residential density, enlivening the generous public space near Judiciary Square, and reconnecting downtown to the Union Station area.
While the square guidelines are just one part of a very long approvals process, the earlier the approvals agencies hear support for an walkable, inviting urban design, the better the outcome.