RIALS AND MUSEUMS MASTER PLAN

CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

2001
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Acknowledgements i Introduction 1

1 A C A L L T O A C T I O N 3

Background 3Commemorative Works Act 5Existing Memorials and Museums 6Joint Task Force on Memorials 6Commemorative Zone Policy 7Purpose of Study 9

2 T H E F R A M E W O R K 11

Planning Influences 11Framework Intent 12Framework Components 14

3 S I T E S E L E C T I O N 17

Identification of Potential Sites 17Identification of Candidate Sites 17Site Evaluation Criteria and Process 18

4 F R O M P L A N T O A C T I O N 27

Implementing the Plan 27Commemorative Proposal Process 27Commemorative Site Acquisition 28Site Infrastructure Improvements 28Community Linkages 30Policies for New Memorials and Museums 32

5 C A N D I D A T E S I T E S 33

Prime Sites 34Other Candidate Sites 92

A P P E N D I X A

Steps for Establishing a Memorial 159

in the Nation’s Capital

A P P E N D I X B

Master Plan Project Team 161

Capital Planning Commission, the

f Fine Arts, and the National Capital

mission are the three federal agencies

approving the location and design of new

e works on federal land. Since 1997 these

have worked together as a joint task force

issues affecting future memorials and

ngress has directed the National Capital

mission to develop this master plan in con

he other two review bodies. A team of

gnized planning and design professionals

his effort. The master plan was issued in

ecember 2000 and widely circulated for

ts. The task force carefully considered

s in the preparation of this final plan.

nd technical master plan material can be

ncpc.gov.
I

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Acknowledgements

APITAL PLANNING COMMISSION COOPERATING AGENCIES

rman

Chairman

. Rumsfeld 

Norton 

A. Perry 

 Services 

on 

 Government Reform

tives 

Lieberman 

 Governmental Affairs

A. Williams 

bia 

Cropp 

 District of Columbia

Commission of Fine Arts J. Carter Brown, ChairmanHarry G. Robinson, III, Vice ChairmanCarolyn BrodyBarbaralee Diamonstein-SpielvogelAnn Todd FreeEmily MalinoEden RafshoonNational Capital Memorial CommissionThe Honorable Fran Mainella, ChairmanDirector, National Park ServiceThe Honorable Alan M. HantmanArchitect of the CapitolGeneral Frederick F. Woerner, USA (Retired)Chairman, American Battle Monuments CommissionJ. Carter BrownChairman, Commission of Fine ArtsJohn V. Cogbill, IIIChairman, National Capital Planning CommissionThe Honorable Anthony A. WilliamsMayor, District of ColumbiaThe Honorable Donald H. RumsfeldSecretary of DefenseF. Joseph MoravecCommissioner, Public Building Services, General Services Administration
TER PLAN

LS

an

onal Capital Planning Commission

Chairman Emeritus

ee, National Capital Planning Commission

ne Arts; Member, National Capital Memorial Commission

l Capital Planning Commissionl Capital Planning Commission

tant Regional Administrator; National Capital Region,

tion 

hitect of the Capitol; 

emorial Commission

the Capitol; 

apital Memorial Commission

of Planning;

emorial Commission

Suzanne GanschinietzFormerly of the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office;Former Member, National Capital Memorial CommissionJohn Cogbill, IIIPresidential Appointee, Chairman, National Capital Planning CommissionColonel Dale F. Means, USADirector of Engineering and Maintenance, American Battle Monuments Commission;Member, National Capital Memorial CommissionJohn G. ParsonsAssociate Regional Director, Lands, Resources, and Planning, National Capital Region,National Park Service; Chairman, National Capital Memorial Commission; Alternate, National Capital Planning CommissionJerry R. ShiplettSpecial Assistant to the Director of Real Estate and Facilities, U.S. Department ofDefense; Member, National Capital Memorial Commission;Alternate, National Capital Planning CommissionNathaniel F. WieneckeProfessional Staff Member, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives; Alternate, National Capital Planning Commission

CE ON MEMORIALS
III

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Acknowledgements 

s, Inc.;

ape and Urban Design at Cesar Pelli and Associates

onsultant for Legacy 

 Merrill; Former NCPC Chairman;

y 

o the Architect of the Capitol;

Capital Memorial Commission

lanning Department

nd Associates

Associates; Professor of Architecture, 

hington Post columnist

Elizabeth MeyerChairman of the Department of Landscape Architecture, University of VirginiaGrover Mouton IIIDirector of the Center for Regional Design, Tulane UniversityWitold Rybczynski, FAIAMeyerson Professor of Urbanism and Director of the Urban Design Program at theUniversity of PennsylvaniaPamela ScottHistorian of Washington architectureSue SturtevantHead, Education Programs, Museums of New Mexico, Santa FeAmy Weinstein, FAIAPrincipal, Weinstein Associates Architects 

RBAN DESIGN EXPERT PANEL
TER PLAN

LS

 Memorial and Memorial Bridge offers an appropriate setting for small scale future memorial features and potential water shuttle landing areas.
1

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Introduction

that define Washington's Monumental Core express

ast and aspirations for its future. They help us under

American. However, as the demand for new memori

al Capital continues to grow, there are concerns that

these attractions will overwhelm the historic open

nd surrounding area. The National Capital Planning

with the Commission of Fine Arts and the National

n, has prepared this Memorials and Museums Master

 development of future commem

n the District of Columbia and its

eserves the capital's open space,

 of Americans will have an abun

tes for their own museums and

c consensus on where those sites

the vision for Washington's

ssed in Extending the Legacy:

or the 21st Century, a long-range

by the National Capital Planning

 Legacy vision, new museums,

buildings, strategically distributed

an help generate local investment

renewal. This master plan builds on Washington's

of the L'Enfant and McMillan Plans and recognizes

h the economic, social, and cultural life of those who

0 potential sites for future memorials and museums

nes for their development. Through this plan, the

or public land and federal commemorative policies

entify good locations for future facilities. The plan

viduals or historic events are suitable subjects for

commemoration. Nor does it propose specific memorial designs or recommendfunding strategies. Authorizing commemorative works is the responsibility ofCongress. Design and funding are usually carried out by private sponsoringorganizations. The plan is intended to be a flexible, "living" document that can and should berevised as development opportunities and commemorative needs change. Someof the proposed sites are available now for new construction; others require significant infrastructure changes before they will be ready for

new development. The sites in the plan's sensitive Area I arestipulated; however, the sites in Area II are simply recommended. For development proposals in Area I, the reviewcommissions will consider only the 18 sites identified in thismaster plan. While the plan's sites in Area II are strongly suggested, memorial and museum sponsors are free to exploreadditional locations, although all sites are subject to finalapproval by the review bodies under the provisions of theCommemorative Works Act.While the majority of master plan sites are located on federalland, some are on District or private land. The master plancalls for, and the commissions are committed to, full and timely consultation with all stakeholders–local residents, business

and civic groups, and federal and city government agencies–as development proposals are considered. The master plan envisions future memorials taking manyforms–gardens, plazas, cultural centers–all serving as city amenities for theenjoyment of visitors and residents. The Memorials and Museums Master Plan is an effort to balance the need to protect the beauty and openness of Washington's Monumental Core with the desireof memorial and museum proponents to locate their attractions on prominentsites in the Nation's Capital. The plan offers a new landscape of commemorationthat will strengthen and enhance Washington's unique character. 

I O N

The Master Plan 

recognizes that the 

symbolic city can enrich

the economic, social, and

cultural life of those who

live and work in it.
3

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

A Call to Action

e of one new memorial was dedicated in the Nation's

here are twelve memorials authorized by Congress

orks Act (CWA) that are in various stages of devel

proposals were introduced in the 106th session of

ing year, more and more new ideas surface for com

In the past 20 years, Congress has authorized 21 new

een built near the Mall. If past trends continue, there

nal memorials in the heart of the Nation's Capital by

wing as well among sponsors of new museums and

gnizing and displaying the contributions, traditions,

ety. 

deas for new museums representing such familiar

life as health and medicine, sports, music, and news,

rcement and military service have been promoted for

f the District of Columbia. With the completion of

Museum of the American Indian at 3rd Street and

Millan Plan for the Mall will be complete. No unde

useums within the area between 3rd and 14th Streets

enced by current proposals, efforts to establish new

asures abound.

ime locations in the heart of the Nation's Capital for

. At the same time, many people believe that the

urpass its capacity to accommodate these activities.

hing on the settings of existing memorials, threaten

gned landscapes and features that make the Mall and

s for residents and visitors alike. 

The goal of the Memorials and Museums Master Plan is to identify and promotenew memorial and museum sites outside the Monumental Core–in accordance with Extending the Legacy, NCPC's vision for the 21st Century. Dispersing memorialsand museums beyond the Monumental Core is seen as a way of protecting the Malland adjacent areas while at the same time offering new opportunities for commemoration, education, and exhibition that are appealing to sponsors and that enrich theentire city. This master plan builds on the work of the Joint Task Force onMemorials (JTFM), an interagency group comprised of NCPC, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Memorial Commission (NCMC). This master plan addresses the following issues:■ Identifying the suitable sites in the Nation's Capital that are available

to handle the memorials and museums that the nation will want to accommodate well into the 21st century.

■ Developing concepts for new memorial and museum sites that reinforce 

the historic urban design features of the city, do not intrude upon the settings of existing memorials or museums, and result in minimal adverseenvironmental and transportation impacts and positive economicand other effects on the culture of local neighborhoods.

■ Finding a way to make memorials and museums "work for a living" while 

also allowing them to be effective forms of commemoration or importantcenters of scientific and cultural information.

The master plan is a planning tool to help guide the location and development ofmemorials and museums in the Nation's Capital. It identifies appropriate locationsand sites for future memorials and museums, comprehensively evaluates potentialsites, and offers ideas on specific actions and strategies that NCPC and othersshould take to achieve the goals of the plan.

A C T I O N
TER PLAN

LS

Figure 1-1The 1986 Commemorative Works Act distinguishes between Area I and Area II.

Area II

Area II

Area I
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

 Act

t of 1986 (CWA) provides standards for the placement

land in the District of Columbia and environs. No such

de the establishment of museums in the city, although

s national museums on federal lands. The District

of reestablishing its review process for memorials on

uthorize memorials that are subject to the CWA. The

een the close-in portions of the Nation's Capital, where

eeminent historical and lasting significance" to the

utside this zone where works of "lasting historical sig

o mapped precincts as Area I and Area II. These

re responsible for memorials in the city, hence their

n study. The CWA established the National Capital

MC) to advise the Secretary of the Interior, the

Services Administration, and Congress on policy and

mmemorative works in the District of Columbia and

National Park Service (NPS) serves as Chairman of

y NPS personnel. NPS staff assists memorial propo

heir proposals and in the review and construction of

l authorization has been granted. The Act requires

MC in selecting sites and designs for commemorative

egularly consults with NPS and NCMC on memorial

es, memorials must receive the approval of NCPC,

 of the Interior or the Administrator of the General

ppropriate. In considering each memorial's site and

s are required to apply certain criteria, including the

potential encroachment on existing memorials, and the

ials. There is no such formal process for the establish

gardless, whether authorized by Congress or not, new

nd in the District of Columbia must receive approval

A.

Existing Memorials and MuseumsAs of June 2001, there were 155 memorials and 74 museums on public landin the District of Columbia and environs. Of the memorials, 59 are located in Area I and 96 in Area II (as shown in Figure 1-1). The vast majority of memorials can be found in the original L’Enfant City, mostly in theNorthwest quadrant of the city. Five memorials are located in theSouthwest quadrant and five in the Northeast quadrant–there are nomemorials in Southeast Washington and, in terms of local political boundaries, there are no memorials in Wards 5, 7, and 8. Ward designationsrelate to present (2001) boundaries. Some ward boundaries will change inJanuary 2002.

Most memorials are sited in openspace settings on National ParkService land, though few memorialsare located on the Mall. This may bedue, in part, to the existing restrictionin the Comprehensive Plan for theNational Capital, prohibiting memorials in the tree panels andgreensward of the Mall, which isbetween 3rd and 14th Streets. InVirginia, there are several memorialswithin Arlington National Cemetery,along Memorial Avenue leading intothe cemetery, and along the GeorgeWashington Memorial Parkway.

Many of the existing museums are under the control of the SmithsonianInstitution and are located on the Mall. Others are in close-in residentialneighborhoods; downtown office districts; and the heart of the city. Museumsare not subject to the Commemorative Works Act, but it happens that Area Icontains 28 museums–these are mostly located along the Mall, alongConstitution Avenue (between 15th and 17th Streets, NW), and near theWhite House–and Area II contains 48 museums. There are no museums inWards 5 or 7. The Anacostia Neighborhood Museum is located in Ward 8.

A Call to Action 5

As of June 2001, 

there were 

155 memorials and 

74 museums on 

public land in the

District of Columbia 

and environs.
morials

lated to memorials in the Nation's Capital, NCPC

e in 1996 and was joined in October 1997 by repre

 Under the provisions of the CWA, these three fed

rity over memorials in the Nation's Capital. NCPC,

1924, is the central planning agency for the federal

pital Region, which covers the District of Columbia

nties in Maryland and Virginia. NCPC reviews and

f Columbia government master plans and construc

comprehensive and long-range planning for the fed

 NCPC is responsible for approving memorials and

n 1910, is comprised of presidential appointees who

f federal and municipal government projects, memo

te construction in the Georgetown area and on lands

e of Washington D.C. and Rock Creek Park. It also

d by Congress under the CWA. 

6 to assist Congress and the two principal memorial

partment of the Interior and the General Services

ementing the Commemorative Works Act. 

rd comprised of representatives from:

r jurisdiction over land in the Monumental Core

r memorials placed therein

f Columbia

ments Commission

The NCMC advises Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administratorof GSA on the appropriateness of subjects for commemoration and on the locationand design of memorials on land under their jurisdiction. Functioning as the Joint Task Force on Memorials, representatives from these threeagencies examined a broad range of issues related to memorials, including:

■ Locations and designs of memorials that preserve open space and historic 

resources in the Monumental Core, while distributing cultural and commemorative resources throughout the city.

■ Potential changes to the boundaries of Areas I and II in the CWA.■ Actions by review and approval bodies to encourage memorial sponsors to 

locate in Area II.

■ Consideration of a moratorium on new memorials in Area I–restrictions that

would go beyond those already in place, as set forth in the Comprehensive Planfor the National Capital, for the area on the Mall between 3rd and 14th Streets.

The task force, over the past three years, has addressed these issues. It has adopteda Commemorative Zone Policy that establishes a Reserve in the central portion of

the Monumental Core in which no new memorial sites will be permitted. The taskforce has also developed ideas for dispersing memorials throughout the city andprepared recommended changes to the CWA aimed at improving the process ofestablishing national memorials. The task force has invited experts from around thecountry to share their ideas on how best to accommodate new memorials and museums. It has met with Congressional representatives, relevant committee staff, theMayor's office, city council members and council staff, Arlington County representatives, and citizen groups and has regularly informed these parties of the taskforce's work and sought their comments.

TER PLAN

LS
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

 Policy

s of the task force, NCPC, CFA, and NCMC, in inde

mmemorative Zone Policy in January 2000. The poli

blic, the District Council, representatives of the D.C.

ers of Congress. The policy does several things:

he Monumental Core and its open space, 

c qualities by limiting memorials in the 

re.

locate in all quadrants of the city as a way of 

and supporting local revitalization efforts.

ng the Legacy which call for increasing the public's

s and strengthening the important North, South, 

es.

Policy calls for the establishment of an area termed

ses the central cross axis of the National Mall formed

e U.S. Capitol, Lincoln Memorial, White House,

Jefferson Memorial. The White House, Washington

Monument, and Jefferson Memorial define the Reserve’s north-south axis. (SeeFigure 1-2). The U.S. Capitol, Washington Monument, and Lincoln Memorial definethe east-west axis. Under the adopted Commemorative Zone Policy, no new memorial or museum siteswill be approved for this cross-axial area. The new policy is designed to preserve theurban design integrity of the Nation's Capital and to encourage placement of newmemorials and museums in strategic locations throughout the city. The policy does notapply to the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, which are under the jurisdiction of theCongress through the Architect of the Capitol. While these grounds are technically notpart of the Reserve, the Commemorative Zone map on the following page recognizesthat the Capitol Grounds are an inappropriate location for the construction of monuments or memorials. The policy also delineates an expanded boundary for Area I,which is federally-owned land surrounding the Reserve. Area I generally is boundedby Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues to the north, the area surrounding the U.S.Capitol that is under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol to the east,Maryland Avenue and the 14th Street Bridge to the south, and Boundary ChannelDrive and Arlington National Cemetery to the west. Area I was first delineated in 1986in the CWA and this plan recommends expansion to the west of the Potomac River. 

A Call to Action 7

Memorial Zones

The ReserveArea IArea IIArchitect of the Capitol

Figure 1-2 Adopted Commemorative Zones
incoln Memorial defines the dignity and setting of our nation’s prominent memorials, whose purpose can be complemented by future commemorative actions.

LS
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

ardens, the Smithsonian museums on the Mall, West

angle, Columbia Island, and portions of the Potomac

 Area I is considered to be a sensitive area designat

s of preeminent historic and national significance.

of the city with emphasis on the important North,

et axes, as well as circles and squares on major

teways, and scenic overlooks. It is in this area where

development of new commemorative works.

hough the sponsors of new memorials are general

nds for construction, any memorial locating on pub

al or its environs receives an enormous subsidy in

eral property. Furthermore, the

mensely as demand for close-in

ntives for locating memorials on

rve and beyond Area I, where

se as it is for sites in the Core)

ublic funds to address unique site

ew memorial proposals, not those

proval by the respective approval

the establishment of the Reserve)

nts to the CWA that have been

e amendments will clarify and

ide guidance to those responsible

n the Nation’s Capital. In 2000,

e Senate in S.311, but were not

Representatives.

Master Plan, which has been prepared in close coop

, builds upon the general principles laid out in the

This Master Plan has two major purposes. First, fed

emorials and museums in the city have an obligation

al and museum sites are available for future genera

nt accompanying this plan contains inventories of

ms within the District and its environs and a forecast

m demands.

This plan also contains a recommended framework (based on historic planninginfluences, urban design considerations, and current planning and development initiatives) for locating future sites. Also included are general guidelines for whereand how memorials and museums should be accommodated on key sites in theNation's Capital over the next 50 years.The plan's siting criteria, general guidelines, and implementation strategies areintended to serve as tools that federal decision-makers, local officials, communityresidents, and prospective memorial and museum sponsors can draw upon to helpguide the future development of memorials and museums within Washington, D.C.and close-in portions of Arlington County.

The recommendations contained in this plan are directed atnational museums and major commemorative works of nationalsignificance (e.g., memorials subject to the CommemorativeWorks Act). Nevertheless, the plan recognizes that there are individuals, groups, and events of local or regional significance thatdeserve recognition and that Washington, D.C. serves multiplepurposes–National Capital, home to over 500,000 city residents,and the center of a growing metropolitan area of 4.5 million residents. While the master plan's focus is on national memorialsand museums, the plan's recommendations can also help providea framework for District of Columbia planning officials to meetlocal commemoration needs. In addition to the twelve Districtcontrolled sites in this report, the District plans to identify otherDistrict sites suitable for local memorials.Secondly, the master plan is intended to advance the vision for

the Monumental Core expressed in Extending the Legacy: Planning America'sCapital for the 21st Century, released by NCPC in November 1997. The LegacyPlan proposed placing memorials and museums and other federal activities outside the traditional core of the city, in locations that provide not only appropriatesettings for commemorative works but also satisfy important local economic andneighborhood objectives. This master plan builds on Legacy and treats memorials and museums as more than simply objects or emblems. As important contributing elements within the urban landscape, they can enhance and strengthencivic spaces. A basic premise of this master plan is that memorials and museums,properly placed and sensitively designed, can provide a source of communityidentity and pride, bolster local neighborhood revitalization efforts, and serve asa means of expanding neighborhood-based tourism.

A Call to Action 9

memorials and museums,

properly placed and 

sensitively designed, 

can provide a 

source of community 

identity and pride
Washington, 1791

LS
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

reat number and wide variety of public open spaces,

n plazas. As a result, there are literally hundreds of

 in the District. To help select the most appropriate

 with CFA and NCMC and expert urban design

memorative framework based on established design

rk provides an organizational hierarchy of sites for

 in historic and current plans strongly influenced the

k and the identification of potential sites. The most

nfant Plan, the McMillan Plan, the Federal Elements of

 National Capital, and NCPC's Extending the Legacy. 

established the physical layout of Washington.

of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, the Florida

Anacostia Hills, the Plan recognized the importance

 have been lost or intruded upon over the last 210

nues to be the single greatest urban design influence

he central positions of the Capitol Building and the

of the original L'Enfant City, and the urban grid are

gure 2-1 depicts the broad urban design direction of the

tinuation and expansion of the L'Enfant Plan and, in

ffort aimed at comprehensively planning the City of

he McMillan Plan grouped public buildings, including

modate and organize governmental activities.

ssed the importance of open space in the city. It

 proposed connecting the Civil War forts that encir

he McMillan Plan also concentrated resources in key

Through these and other efforts, the Plan expanded

the L'Enfant Plan. Figure 2-2 illustrates many of the

ed in the McMillan Plan for the Monumental Core.

he National Capital, published jointly by NCPC and

the District of Columbia government, is the principal planning document guidingfederal development in the National Capital Region. The Plan includes policiesthat recognize and protect the most important components of both the L'Enfant andMcMillan Plans. The Comprehensive Plan protects the historically significant andsymbolic avenues, streets and parkways, reservations, squares, and circles that contribute to the spatial organization of the city by designating them as Special Streetsand Special Places. Special Streets provide important symbolic and physical connections between key areas of the city; Special Places serve as places of publicamenity and as focal points for important civic activities.Extending the Legacy was prepared in 1997 by NCPC. Legacy proposes to reestablish the U.S. Capitol as the center of monumental Washington by guiding federal activities and civic features to portions of North, South, and East CapitolStreets, thereby extending redevelopment into each quadrant of the city. In addition,the plan recommends removing intrusive elements that interrupt the L'Enfant Plan,such as surface freeways and rail lines. Legacy also promotes the enhancement ofnatural resources and waterfront lands. It removes barriers that have divided communities and hampered mobility throughout the city, while proposing new connections between neighborhoods. Figure 2-3 illustrates the planning guidance included in Extending the Legacy.

The Framework 11

W O R K

Figure 2-2 The McMillan Plan
c city where many of the nation's values–democra

mobility–were born and are defended and redefined.

 the nation's commemorative works and most trea

all plays an important role in symbolizing these core

ative and cultural resources present in the Mall area,

shaped its development over time, and its unique

g Special Place. The primary purpose of the Master

h and illustrate an organizational hierarchy for iden

and future commemorative sites consistent with the

hington. The framework: 

acter of key locations outside the Monumental Core.

tures, including waterways, natural areas, and 

 foundation.

stances of the L'Enfant Plan with the concentrated 

aces of the McMillan Plan.

al Streets and Special Places from the 

center the city around the U.S. Capitol and the 

f urban areas in a manner that is consistent 

 in the city can serve as a catalyst for revitalization

s focal points for community pride. By integrating

yday spaces, the framework also recognizes that

n as both a national capital and as a hometown. The

ommitment to ecological protection, environmental

rvation. It reconnects the built environment with the

 on the waterfront and places where the axial geom

points. The framework's emphasis on the waterfront

 for environmental protection and reclamation, and

cess to the city's long-neglected, but valuable, water

o emphasizes the important role that memorials and

 neighborhood revitalization throughout the city. 

TER PLAN

LS

Figure 2-3 The Legacy Plan

Figure 2-4 Summary of MajorPlanning Influences
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

t memorials and museums can be powerful tools for

ment. By providing a neighborhood with civic beauty

f ownership and pride, memorials and museums can

Such benefits have been realized in the area sur

 As a long-term guide, it focuses on redefining key

ortunities throughout the city. The framework has

makers the flexibility to accommodate change over

he past, embraces the natural setting of the Nation's

ant economic activity areas and neighborhoods. It is

nations' history, values, and dreams can be exhibited

ects key economic activity areas and neighborhoods

onumental Core.

The framework continues and builds upon the historical foundations of the earlyplanning efforts and urban design traditions that make Washington, D.C. arenowned capital city. It honors the past, yet responds to modern-day realities andneeds. It does not attempt to create one or more new Malls. Rather, the frameworkpreserves the historic open space of the traditional Monumental Core area and, innew ways, creates a special character in other strategic places throughout the city.By dispersing memorials and museums beyond Washington's traditional federalprecincts and bringing the benefits of these national attractions to city neighborhoods and commercial districts, the framework supports fundamental Americanvalues. Rather than concentrate cultural resources in traditional federal precincts,the framework places them in all quadrants of the city.

The Framework 13

apitol Street Monumental Corridor as proposed public space improvements could redefine the character and vitality of this important L’Enfant street.
Framework ComponentsThe framework incorporates, and is based upon, the naturallandforms and physical features that formed the boundaries ofthe original city, supported by an internal network of distinctive urban features that offer appropriate locations for futurememorials and museums. The physical foundation has threeelements: a crescent-shaped band that follows the generalalignment of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers along thesouthern border of the Monumental Core; the principal roadways that radiate from the White House and U.S. Capitol; andfocal areas that are formed by the intersection of these majorstreets with the waterfront. The framework suggests key opportunity areas and potentialsites that have distinction and that can accommodate newmemorials and museums. Figure 2-5 illustrates the principalframework elements in a sequence of images that depicts theirrelationship and context to the city’s natural and cultural features.The framework's most important element is the WaterfrontCrescent. The Waterfront Crescent is aligned on major waterfront lands along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. Theseopen spaces along the District's waterfront offer prime, visibleareas for commemoration, especially at points where majoraxes that radiate from the U.S. Capitol intersect the waterway. The framework's crescent shape is strengthened internally bya lattice of Monumental Corridors. These Corridors includeSpecial Streets and the circles, squares, reservations, and corner parks formed by the intersection of the city's diagonalavenues with the orthogonal grid system. The intersection of the Waterfront Crescent and the majorMonumental Corridors offers a special opportunity for a concentration of commemorative works. These CommemorativeFocus Areas include the three areas where the WaterfrontCrescent intersects with the western extension of the NationalMall, with South Capitol Street, and with East Capitol Street. 

Inherent in the framework are several urban design principles that can be used to organize commemorative opportunity areas. These principles are based on symbolic prominence, visual linkages, and aesthetic quality. For example, toreinforce the focal importance of the U.S. Capitol and theWhite House, the framework includes areas that have symbolic axial relationships to either central element. The framework also includes areas that have strong visual connectionswith other existing major commemorative resources. Alsoincluded in the framework are areas with distinct identitiesand unique aesthetic qualities, such as natural beauty, notablearchitecture, and clusters of civic art. Although the masterplan framework is based largely on the Waterfront Crescent,

Monumental Corridors, and Commemorative Focus Areaskey elements of the Monumental Core–it recognizes that

commemoration should not be contained within thebounds of the original L'Enfant City. 

TER PLAN

LS

nts

Figure 2-6 Framework Summary Diagram
15

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

The Framework

Figure 2-7 The Framework Diagram summarizes planning considerations for directingthe location of future memorials throughout the District of Columbia.

the road

ude vari

such as

rces, and

numental

mportant,

l both to

elopment

es and to

ton, D.C.

does not

areas that

work ele

a tool for

ble sites;

nize and

ble loca

 cultural

illustrate

e master
TER PLAN

LS

wed from the Arlington Ridge vicinity with the Iwo Jima Memorial in foreground, capturing the city's riverfront and parkland character 
17

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

er plan is the identification and compilation of potential

tes in the District of Columbia and environs.

en in the initial identification, evaluation, and short

s was, by necessity, iterative. The initial list of loca

reduced on several occasions resulting in a final list

pon for purposes of additional evaluation and refine

cations was also identified and all sites were catego

vailability, and numerous other factors. 

ations was a compilation of sites: 

ark Servicecy Plan

ld complete or restore missing elements 

JTFM and consultant team

 these processes resulted in a total of 402 potential

al Sites

are identified as prime sites. Nine of these are con

es, or sites available for immediate development with

her 11 Prime Sites are either dependent on imple

 or would require some other modifications to enable

welve Prime Sites are under the jurisdiction of the

ther Candidate Sites (those not designated as Prime)

or General Services Administration lands, approxi

d sites are located on non-GSA or NPS lands (i.e.,

Columbia, WMATA, or private lands). Only 8 of the

vate property.

Identification of Candidate Sites Initial Short-Listing of Candidate SitesNCPC conducted an initial analysis of the selected 402 potential memorial andmuseum locations for the purpose of preparing a short-list of approximately 100candidate locations that would undergo more detailed urban design, transportation,environmental, and economic evaluation. The process of preparing this short-listof "Candidate" locations, as they were called, incorporated the following steps:■ Identifying and mapping various planning criteria identified as 

applicable to the description and analysis of potential sites.

■ Developing site-specific evaluation criteria and preparing associated 

reference databases and maps. 

■ Applying evaluation criteria to potential locations.■ Weighing and ranking the potential locations.■ Short-listing candidate locations.■ Gathering JTFM and agency review and comments on candidate locations.■ Obtaining consensus.

Candidate Sites Relative to the Design FrameworkThe site selection process also evaluated the candidate locations relative to elements of the framework. Each location was assigned a level of significance basedon the planning and urban design principles described earlier in this report. The elements of the framework were placed in the following order of importance: 

■ Waterfront Crescent■ Monumental Corridors (Gateway Boulevards and Principal Avenues)■ Commemorative Focus Areas

Final Candidate Sites and Site LocationsA brief summary of each site was distributed to the members of the JTFM and otherinterested parties, including the Committee of 100, Advisory NeighborhoodCommissions, District Council Members and staff, select staff from Congressionaloversight committees, etc. After review and comment, a consensus was reachedand the final short-list of 100 Candidate memorial and museum sites was completed. Figure 3-1 illustrates these sites with respect to the master plan framework.These 100 sites and site locations then underwent detailed analysis and evaluationby the consultant team.

Site Selection

T I O N
e prominent locations capable of accommodating

ional importance. Nevertheless, the relative signifi

on varies depending upon how the site relates to the

mework. These principles include symbolic promi

thetic quality. The Prime Sites are those of the high

gh visibility and strong axial relationships with the

ouse, they should be reserved for subjects of lasting

nce.

es are not ranked. This is not to suggest, however, that

ey are highly recommended because of either their lin

key existing and future commemorative features, their

esign structure of the Nation's Capital, or the support

d local planning or development objectives.

 and Process

ed on the 100 candidate sites to document the physi

ics of each site relative to its suitability and appro

ve feature. 

ating each candidate site

or each factor 

ntial responses to each criteria

ability, the technical evaluation applied: (1) Planning

 Economic Criteria; (3) Transportation Criteria; and

brief description of each criterion follows. For more

e evaluation criteria and process, consult the techni

riteria

isual quality, and the presence of historic or cultural

art of each site analysis. The site’s relevance to the

 with its attractiveness and suitability as a potential

on, factored into the evaluation.

Economic CriteriaThe nature of a memorial or museum–that is, who or what is being commemoratedor displayed–influences its associated economic status. However, for the purposesof the master plan, economic analysis focused on the ways in which adding amemorial or museum to a candidate site would economically benefit the surrounding area, and the region as a whole. The evaluation included analysis of a site’sexisting economic uses (e.g., offices) and amenities (e.g., retail).Transportation CriteriaThe evaluation of transportation at candidate sites addressed access requirementsand constraints; the general magnitude of development that might be accommodated, given resources at the site; and potential transportation improvements. Sixmodes of transportation were evaluated: Metrorail; Metrobus; pedestrian; waterbased vehicles; the Legacy circulator; and passenger vehicles. Access to each site,

via these modes, was assessed based on factors such as walking distances, parkingavailability, and proximity to the waterfront and key roadways.Environmental CriteriaIn its environmental evaluation, the task force identified a number of environmental issues pertaining to each site. Such issues include: sensitive ecologicalresources; land uses and regulations; required physical alterations; environmentalcontamination; and necessary infrastructure improvements. For the Prime Sites,the task force consulted existing environmental documents and information.

TER PLAN

LS

Many of the Candidate Sitesfeature direct views to Washington’smajor monuments.
re 3-1 Candidate Site Locations

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Site Selection 19
TER PLAN

LS

With Prime Sites listed first, the 100 candidate sites are: Candidate Memorial and Museum SitesNo. General Location/DescriptionNote: Sites #1 through 20 represent the Prime Sites

1 Memorial Avenue at George Washington Memorial Parkway

(west of Memorial Bridge )

2 E Street expressway interchange on the east side of the Kennedy Center3 Intersection of Maryland and Independence Avenues, SW 

(between 4th and 6th Streets) 

4 Kingman Island (Anacostia River) 5 Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Avenue, NW between 13th -14th Streets 6 Potomac River waterfront on Rock Creek Parkway

(south of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge)

7 East Capitol Street east of 19th Street

(north of the Armory - current west entrance to RFK) 

8 South Capitol Street terminus at the Anacostia River, SE/SW 

(Florida Rock 'amenity' site) 

9 10th Street Overlook at south end of L'Enfant Promenade, SW 

10 Constitution Gardens south of Constitution Avenue 11 Walt Whitman Park along E Street between 19th and 20th Streets, NW 12 On the Tidal Basin on Maine Avenue west of 14th Street, SW 

(north of Outlet Bridge) 

13 In East Potomac Park on the Potomac River 

(at the current railroad and/or Metrorail bridges)

14 The intersection of New York and Florida Avenues

(and new Metrorail Station) 

15 Pennsylvania Avenue and the Anacostia River 

(at west end of the Sousa Bridge)

16 Anacostia River waterfront south shore in Anacostia Park, SE

(old Architect of the Capitol nursery)

17 West of North Capitol Street on McMillan Reservoir Grounds, NW 

(former sand filtration plant) 

18 South of Ash Road at the NPS horse stables site, West Potomac Park 19 The intersection of Maryland and Virginia Avenues, SW

(between 7th and 9th Streets)

20 Federal Building #2, north of Washington Boulevard, Arlington, VA
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

21

Prime Candidate Site Locations 

Site Selection
TER PLAN

LS

nacostia Park and Langston Golf Course, NE

ia River at Massachusetts Avenue, SE 

of Anacostia River near the Douglass Bridge

 Benjamin Franklin Circle

f Pennsylvania Avenue, NW)

ana Ave and 1st Street, NW 

al Street) at 2nd Street, SW 

Washington Channel, facing 7th Street, SW 

orge Washington Memorial Parkway

irport) 

abeths Hospital, SE 

n Cove, SW 

Pennsylvania Avenue, SE

t) 

and and Constitution Avenues, NE and Avenue and D Street, NE 

ylvania and Independence Avenues, SE 

nia and South Carolina Avenues at D Street, SE

ail Station) 

f Pennsylvania and Potomac Avenues, SE 

rail Station) 

t in the Southeast Federal Center, SE 

Anacostia River

glass Bridge, SE)

shington Channel

ins Point, SW)

omac River 

ins Point, SW )

rth of I-395

W on Maryland Avenue extended )

hannel at Water Street and 7th Street, SW 

reline in West Potomac Park 

ial)

th/19th) or James Monroe Park (20th/21st),

h, Streets, NW )

en M Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

47 Intersection of Massachusetts and Florida Avenues, NW at 22nd & Q Streets.48 Intersection of Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW at 3rd Street 49 Intersection of Eastern Avenue and 16th Street, NW 50 D.C. side of Chain Bridge, NW (on Canal Road) 51 The intersection of Canal Road and Foxhall Road, NW

(in Glover Archbold Park)

52 The northern end of Key Bridge at M Street, NW 

(and the Whitehurst Freeway) 

53 North of Massachusetts Avenue, NW and Macomb Street

(at Glover Archbold Parkway )

54 Tenley Circle Reservations 

(at Wisconsin/Nebraska Avenues and Yuma Street, NW)

55 Potomac River at Rock Creek Parkway at west side of Kennedy Center 56 East side of Rock Creek at the end of Virginia Avenue, NW 57 On the Potomac River at the foot of Wisconsin Avenue

(Georgetown Waterfront Park)

58 North of the Pentagon North Parking area 

(on Boundary Channel in Virginia)

59 On the Virginia side of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge 60 25th Street on Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

(Either of two existing triangular parks on the Avenue)

61 New Washington Convention Center at Mount Vernon Square

(Massachusetts and New York, NW) 

62 Intersection of New York and New Jersey Avenues and M Street, NW63 Anacostia River north shoreline east of 11th Street

(between the Martin Luther King Memorial and Sousa Bridges)

64 South side of Martin Luther King Memorial Bridge

(11th Street, on the Anacostia River)

65 Virginia side of the 14th Street Bridge 

(location of former Twin Bridges Marriott)

66 The intersection of New York, West Virginia, and Montana Aves, NE 67 Pennsylvania Avenue east of the Sousa Bridge 

(east intersection with the Anacostia Freeway on the Anacostia River) 

68 North shore of the Anacostia River in the Washington Navy Yard, SE 69 North side of Martin Luther King Memorial Bridge 

(11th Street, east of Washington Navy Yard, SE) 

70 Along Potomac River shoreline in West Potomac Park

(west of FDR Memorial) 

71 Intersection of Maryland and Florida Avenues and Benning Road, NE
e and Prime Candidate Site Locations

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Site Selection 23
TER PLAN

LS

 general location of the 

 Arboretum 

orgia Avenues, NW

 Metrorail Station) 

man Lake in the Anacostia River

um)

usetts, South Carolina, and 

SE 

st Capitol Street

ve, west of Benning Road)

r at M Street, SE 

Station south of Howard Road, SE 

eral property) 

Rosslyn Circle, or 1101 Wilson Boulevard

ce to historic terminal at Reagan Washington 

River in Bolling Air Force Base, SW

wards Places) 

of Suitland Parkway, SE, near 20th Street 

etrorail Station 

ation (or located in Fort Totten Park) 

irmen's Home grounds, NW 

eet) 

h Street and Military Road, NW(at 27th Street) or north of Military Road, NW

Massachusetts and Western Avenues, NW

Parkway) 

of Half Street, SW

and Eastern Avenues, NW 

arry Street (Banneker Recreation Center) 

enue and east of North Capitol Street) 

93 Fort Lincoln north of New York Avenue, NE 

(west of the Anacostia River) 

94 On north side of Alabama Avenue, SE immediately east of St. Elizabeths

(near Congress Heights Metrorail Station) 

95 On the north side of the National Museum of American History

(14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW) 

96 On Eastern Avenue and Barnard Hill Drive, NE 

(between Rhode Island and Michigan Avenues)

97 At the intersection of M Street and Delaware Avenue, SW 98 Park triangles near the intersection of New Jersey and Massachusetts 

Avenues, NW 

99 Intersection of South Capitol Street and Anacostia Freeway

(I-295–east side) 

100 Adjacent to the Brentwood Maintenance Facility, New York Avenue, NE.

(east of Florida Avenue)

Near Reagan National Airport, Daingerfield Island represents one of many candidate siteslocated within parkland settings that could be suitable for a future memorial.
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

25 Site Selection

 revitalized South Capitol Street with mixed land uses and new public spaces reaching from the U.S. Capitol to the Anacostia River waterfront
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

27

ng the plan a reality. It identifies: existing processes

mprove the way memorials and museums are built in

ulatory tools that can be used to reserve key sites for

es; and ideas for assisting memorial or museum spon

ng their individual site-related commemorative needs,

 and federal government should undertake to enhance

e resources and promote new commemorative activ

uture commemorative resources continue to be suc

on while also serving as tools to promote broader fed

eral planning issues must be resolved or processes

zed under the following four headings. 

Process or the practices and procedures by 

the location and design of new commemorative 

apital.

isition or the actions necessary to preserve key 

memorial and/or museum uses.

ements or the major physical changes and 

environment that are needed at key locations 

the settings for commemorative resources 

orative activities.

ays commemorative resources can help local 

s opportunities for strengthening the cultural 

etween commemorative resources and 

 a summary of master plan implementation measures.

sure is contained within the technical document, which

While each recommended site would have its own

ools, the following provides a general overview of the

d advance the goals of the master plan. Where possi

he public entity responsible for a particular action.

Commemorative Proposal ProcessLike most long-range plans, realization of the vision is expected to occur over manyyears. One overriding concern of the Task Force is the extent to which federal andDistrict of Columbia agencies and other affected parties take into consideration thenew inventory of recommended commemorative sites as they consider individualdevelopment proposals on or near recommended sites. NCPC intends to revise thefederal elements of the Comprehensive Plan to include the adopted CommemorativeZone Policy. NCPC and the District government, working with the NCMC, shouldalso provide regular reports on the progress being made in implementing the masterplan. This collaboration can provide an opportunity to suggest priority locations formemorials and for additions or revisions to the master plan that may advance localplanning objectives. The following action should be undertaken.■ NCPC and the District government should encourage the redistribution 

of new memorials and museums throughout the city through changesin the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital.

Unlike today, however, where an inventory of potential memorial and/or museumlocations is not available to the public or prospective sponsors until after a proposal is being considered by review bodies, such information and other siting considerations will be publicly available in advance of the site selection process. By providing data on the constraints and/or opportunities that the review agencies haveidentified for 100 recommended locations around the city, the master plan represents public agency consensus on sites that are considered to be appropriate forcommemorative resources. 

■ NCMC, NCPC, CFA, and the District and Arlington County governments 

should provide guidance and support for commemorative proposals by

directing prospective sponsors to sites that reinforce the master plan urban design framework.

Amendments to the Commemorative Works Act, suggested by NCPC, CFA, andNCMC and passed by the Senate in July 2000, also provide improved guidance anddirection for the process of establishing commemorative works in the Nation'sCapital. The following actions are additional opportunities for advancing the masterplan through process changes and other proposals: 

From Plan to Action

 T O A C T I O N
TER PLAN

LS

notice procedures to local residents, ANCs, District

ls from affected suburban jurisdictions of upcom

es for commemorative works. This could include 

for comment to affected and interested agencies, 

fessional and civic groups and organizations.

Columbia should identify and coordinate existing 

mbia commemorative works policies and planning

niform and coordinated approach to locating new

 the city and to better distinguish between national

needs and interests. 

cquisition

ed at either advancing acquisition of key commemo

ntly under federal control or facilitating the reserva

s non-federal properties are redeveloped. Only the

o achieve the objective of safeguarding critical lands

envisioned. Unless acquired by the federal govern

morative features on private lands should be arranged

wners and development of commemorative features

 of the District government should be arranged with

t governments should identify key parcels at

ocations that should be reserved for significant new

vernments should utilize existing land management

ontrols (e.g. project planning/review authorities,

opment process, etc.) to preserve lands for com

commended master plan sites while also furthering

ctives. 

NCPC, and/or General Services Administration (to the

uld purchase parcels located within the urban fabric

r national commemorative action, if necessary. Only

master plan sites, seven in the District and one in

 and are potential candidates for acquisition. The fed

identify government lands in its inventory to surplus

e other compensation to the District to account for

and other revenue from possible federal purchases.

Site Infrastructure ImprovementsThis section recommends strategies that build on the District’s tradition of usingpublic/private partnerships to undertake bold revitalization efforts to shape thecity’s appearance. A fairly recent example of effective government and private partnerships is the redevelopment record of the Pennsylvania Avenue DevelopmentCorporation. This agency successfully advanced redevelopment of America's MainStreet, Pennsylvania Avenue, from the U.S. Capitol to the White House. Severalnew and reconfigured national commemorative features were developed in thePennsylvania Avenue corridor through this partnership.The following are several ways the public sector could support large-scale redevelopment and site improvements related to recommended commemorative locations:■ In order to advance infrastructure improvements at potential memorial sites, 

the Secretary of the Interior should be authorized to seek appropriated funds for grants or loans to approved commemorative sponsors in order to defray the cost of correcting or improving extraordinary site conditions associated with potential sites within the urban fabric of the District.

■ The District and federal governments should use existing local, regional, 

and federal environmental programs to improve the condition of the Anacostiaand Potomac River waterfronts and advance the master plan vision.

■ District and federal officials should work together to establish the necessary 

legislation and administrative authorities to revitalize and improveMonumental Corridors, Commemorative Focus Areas, and Special Streetsand create within these settings areas of high visual quality, improved safety, and enhanced amenity.

Transportation infrastructure improvements are also vital to realizing the masterplan's vision. By providing better access to the city's waterfronts, monumentalcorridors, and communities, Washington can reduce its dependence on personalvehicles, while improving linkages to the city's commemorative features.
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

The following suggested actions would provide improved transit access and circulation for Washington and its future commemorative sites:

■ As proposed in Legacy, the District and federal governments should initiate

a river bridge revitalization and replacement program for the Theodore 

Roosevelt and 14th Street Bridges and for all bridges on the Anacostia River

as they reach the end of their useful lives. Such a revitalization and 

replacement program could also provide opportunities to improve access to the 

waterfront, increase the visual prominence of selected areas of the city, and 

encourage opportunities for new commemorative features.

■ The federal and District governments should support the efforts of the 

Downtown Business Improvement District to establish an alternative 

transit system (i.e., downtown circulator) that could provide greater accessto central city and waterfront memorial and museum locations.

■ The federal and District governments should ensure that sites for new 

memorials and museums, when selected, take maximum advantage ofregional river transit and downtown circulator systems as they areestablished.

■ The federal and District governments should improve bikeway and 

pedestrian routes along riverfronts and throughout the city to provide 

improved access to existing and proposed memorial and museum sites.

More than 30 percent of the recommended commemorative sites are located along

the city's waterfronts. Consequently, implementation of the plan would be benefited greatly by a river-based transit system. Similar access gains would be realized for downtown sites with the development of a downtown circulator transitsystem, complementing the existing Metrorail and bus systems, private vehicles,tour bus service, and taxis. 

■ The federal and District governments should initiate a study of waterfront 

transit landing areas to identify and encourage coordinated connections to newriverside commemorative sites while promoting new community amenities.

■ Federal and District officials should work with the private sector to establish

a water-based tour vehicle system operated by a private franchise. Such asystem could support improved waterfront access and tourism related to commemorative resources.

29 From Plan to Action

ents include future bridge redesigns and a new water shut

ess to memorials and museums. 
s and expansion of public rail systems has led to a

r some existing and future highway projects. 

ystem in place, access to many future national 

uld be made accessible by way of Metrorail 

t systems. The planned New York Avenue 

ida Avenue, NE, for example, could serve as a 

talization while providing access to potential

ures. 

ernment should work with WMATA to site 

 existing and planned Metrorail stations within 

ansit can provide improved access to the city's 

t centers, and waterfront areas.

ms Master Plan identifies a number of potential

xisting or potential neighborhood settings, including

tia, Shaw, Kingman Park, Brookland, and Marshall

 are vibrant centers of residential, cultural, and com

alization and linkage is crucial to the implementation

ss opportunities for linking the master plan to local

uld work with the District to encourage 

ation efforts in areas near Prime Sites.

d NCPC's waterfront initiative should be

e strategy for revitalizing the city's

nd as a vehicle for furthering the 

principles.

Implementation of new commemorative resources within the city's neighborhoods must be closely coordinated with neighborhood plans prepared by localresidents and elected officials. This coordination ensures that new features areappropriate in scale and use at each location. Local planning efforts could alsohelp in identifying local and regional commemorative opportunities that couldwork well with the potential national commemorative opportunities that aredescribed in this master plan.The plan promotes the idea that the cultural and historic diversity of our Nation'sCapital can become a focus for a broader commemorative experience, particularlywithin such historic locales as Anacostia, Brookland, Georgetown, MarshallHeights, and Shaw. The following implementation measures are designed toencourage the dispersal of future commemorative features (at an appropriate scaleand expression) on sites beyond the core as a way of supporting and nurturing agreater appreciation of city-wide cultural and historic resources:

■ Federal and District of Columbia historic preservation agencies should 

inventory the historic urban design and cultural elements of the city and its waterfront areas as an initial step in restoring or complementing the historic features of related neighborhoods and local areas.

■ Federal and District historic preservation agencies and the NCMC should 

coordinate to direct future commemorative features to sites offering 

supporting cultural and historic interpretive opportunities.

■ The federal and city governments should encourage memorial sponsorship of

existing historic neighborhoods, buildings, landscapes, and features in 

conjunction with future commemorative actions.

■ The federal government should encourage the adaptive reuse of historic 

structures and settings, and underutilized federal properties, by integrating 

new memorial and museum activities within them, where appropriate.

TER PLAN

LS
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

31 From Plan to Action

aces at the Anacostia Metrorail station area could provide potential locations for future memorials and museums.
TER PLAN

LS

ms and Memorials

Master Plan establishes policies for the siting and

d museums throughout the District of Columbia.

these policies when evaluating individual proposals

 in the Nation's Capital. The policies are as follows:

f the Monumental Core–its vistas, open spaces and

mary objective of limiting the number of new muse

ums are to be encouraged in all quadrants of the city

cal communities and local revitalization efforts.

eum may be located within the Reserve, as defined

n for the National Capital.

orials of the "highest historical and national signifi

Area I; however, no museums or education centers

tomac Park or on other parkland in Area I.

for Area I, as defined in the Commemorative Works

es identified in this master plan. Those proposed for

d locate on sites in this plan.

be located on the U.S. Capitol grounds.

seum sites should be appropriate to their subject, and

ate surroundings.

should reinforce key design features of the L'Enfant

luding major streets and avenues, waterfronts, and

2. Special attention should be paid to locating new museums and memorials

along major avenues and Special Streets.

3. Placing new memorials along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers will promote

greater use and better public understanding of Washington's rivers and shouldbe encouraged.

4. Prominent sites, such as promontories and broad intersections, should be

reserved for significant memorials.

5. New memorials must not encroach on neighboring memorials and open space. 6. Adapting older buildings or structures for new museums and memorials

should be encouraged.

7. Visitor services at memorials in Area I should be limited to only small information kiosks and restroom facilities and should not contain buildings or interior

spaces housing exhibits, displays, collections, or other interpretive products andprograms normally found in museums, visitor centers, or education centers.

Connections1. Whenever possible, new museums and memorials should serve as catalysts for

economic development and for public and private urban design improvements.

2. Museums and memorials should enhance the image and identity of their surroundings. New museums and memorials should take advantage of existing

infrastructure, especially public transportation.

3. Locating commemorative works close to other civic projects will likely

increase tourism and educational opportunities.

4. Memorials and museums should support established land uses and local planning objectives.5. The District government, appropriate Advisory Neighborhood Commissions,

and neighborhood organizations must be consulted in planning museums andmemorials outside the Monumental Core.
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

33 Candidate Sites

d by applying the specific urban design, economic,

ntal criteria defined in Section 3 (also see Appendix for

ollowing Prime Site evaluations were conducted based

d using data obtained from NCPC and other sources. 

tes, 80 additional sites are considered within this mas

 are included at the end of the Prime Site evaluations

ments of each site's potential to accommodate future

the approximate location of the 20 Prime Sites within

 Waterfront Crescent, Monumental Corridors, and

With Prime Sites listed first, the 100 candidate sites are: Candidate Memorial and Museum SitesNo. General Location/Description

Note: Sites #1 through 20 represent the Prime Sites

1 Memorial Avenue at George Washington Memorial Parkway

(west of Memorial Bridge )

2 E Street expressway interchange on the east side of the Kennedy Center3 Intersection of Maryland and Independence Avenues, SW 

(between 4th and 6th Streets) 

4 Kingman Island (Anacostia River) 5 Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Avenue, NW between 13th -14th Streets 6 Potomac River waterfront on Rock Creek Parkway

(south of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge)

7 East Capitol Street east of 19th Street

(north of the Armory - current west entrance to RFK) 

8 South Capitol Street terminus at the Anacostia River, SE/SW 

(Florida Rock 'amenity' site) 

9 10th Street Overlook at south end of L'Enfant Promenade, SW 

10 Constitution Gardens south of Constitution Avenue 11 Walt Whitman Park along E Street between 19th and 20th Streets, NW 12 On the Tidal Basin on Maine Avenue west of 14th Street, SW 

(north of Outlet Bridge) 

13 In East Potomac Park on the Potomac River

(at the current railroad and/or Metrorail bridges)

14 The intersection of New York and Florida Avenues

(and new Metrorail Station) 

15 Pennsylvania Avenue and the Anacostia River 

(at west end of the Sousa Bridge)

16 Anacostia River waterfront south shore in Anacostia Park, SE

(old Architect of the Capitol nursery)

17 West of North Capitol Street on McMillan Reservoir Grounds, NW

(former sand filtration plant) 

18 South of Ash Road at the NPS horse stables site, West Potomac Park 19 The intersection of Maryland and Virginia Avenues, SW

(between 7th and 9th Streets)

20 Federal Building #2, north of Washington Boulevard, Arlington, VA 

 S I T E S

Prime Site LocationWaterfront CrescentMonumental CorridorsCommemorative Focus Areas