Evening star., 1933-08-20
ARTS COMMISSION
REVERSAL CHARGED
ION BRIDGE PLANS
GotWaIs Claims Group
Changed Mind on Calvert
Street Span Design.
HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS
is CITED IN Statement
Engineer Commissioner Seeks to Ex-
plain Reasons for Consideration
Of Different Requirements.

Street Bridge within less than tWt
years, was unfolded in a 22-page type
written statement released by Engineer
Commissioner John c. Gotwals late
yesterday.
The statement was offered to cleal
up much of the confusion now exist.
ing as to why so many plans for thi
bridge had to be drawn. and why the
District will have to pay $4,000 fol
heretofore quite generally been blamet
on the District Commissioners.
In the GotWals statement, no blame
is laid on any one. and the document
is in the form of history of thu
II years Of negotiations for the build
| ing Of structure to replace the bridge
which was considered to have outlivet
its usefulness in 1916.
Moore's Wire Cited.
However, the statement reproduce:
| a telegram from Charles Moore. chair.
man of the Fine Arts Commission
dated September 4. 1881. to Paul Gre
| of the firm of Modjeski. Masters
, Chase, which have been retained Il
design the bridge The telegram read
Answering telegram unnecessary II
! come here. Commission prefers sketch
! No. as best solution to problem be
cause of simple dignity and no confu
sion Of arched or rectangular opening
| to disturb simple single span Charlie
| Moore, chairman, Commission of Fin,
/ Arts"
When controversy arose this yea
about the form that the bridge wa
eventually to take. the Fine Arts Com
mission. on July %, notified the Dis
trict Commissioners as follows:
The Commission Of Fine Arts ad
vises that the Calvert Street Bridge b.
of masonry with multiple arches. de
signed in harmony with the Connecti
cut avenue span
The Gotwals statement starts with
brief history of the construction of tn
bridge in 1891 and then skips rathe
hurriedly to 1916. when there wer
hearings before subcommittee of Ap
preparations Committees on the subjec
OF building new bridge.
Mai Totten Engaged.
An item of S6 900 was included il
the 1917 appropriation for plans TO
| the bridge. At that time there va
some talk of competition for pre-
liminary designs. but instead the Com
missioners engaged Maj. George Oakle,
Totten. jr. to draw them The con
tract specifically provided that the de
signer would not be required to furnish
! structural drawings Mr. Totten sub
mitted plan for a masonry bridg,
/, of five spans. But structural drawing
for that bridge were never submitted
| When the Totten design was sub
mitted to the Fine Arts Commission
that body. in letter dated July IA
1917. criticized it very sharply as "ex
travagant in cost and ornate beyon'
any justification" and suggested tha
the design be returned to the artist TO
modification into a simpler structure
subordinate to the Connecticut Avenu
Bridge, and to be constructed of con
crete.
Preliminary Approval.
This was done, and the Fine Art
| Commission wrote the then Enginee
! Commissioner:
! The commission gave their pre-
| liminary approval of the study with tn
understanding that working drawings
before being finally contracted for, b'
submitted to them for final approval
| But again on November 9, 1921
Chairman Charles Moore of the com
mission, in a letter to Col. Keller, thel
| Engineer Commissioner (the letter va
marked "personalD, said: Col. Kut
"a previous Engineer Commissioner
submitted to the Commission of Fint
Arts design for new bridge at Calvert
street. prepared by Mr.. George Oakle.
| Totten, architect. The commission wa
| of the opinion that the design sub
| mitted was far too elaborate. In tn,
opinion of the commission the Connec
! ticut Avenue Bridge should be th'
! dominating structure. The de
sign submitted was for a stone bridg
| quite elaborately ornamented-a struc
| ture which would really dominate th'
greater and more important bridge. Th'
second design submitted was only {
slight modification of the first one. bu
| no change in the essential character o
! the old design.
Hoped to Speed Funds.
This is only a personal letter writ.
! ten in the hope that by simplifying the
character of the bridge two objects may
be gained: First, an earlier appropria-
ton by Congress. and second, such sub.
ordination of one bridge to another a.
shall bring about harmony instead Of
threatened discord.'
Again in 1922. Col. Keller, being ir
doubt of the safety of the Calvert Street
Bridge. had it examined by an outside
firm of bridge experts, and in notifying
Representative Frederick NJ Zihlman
then chairman Of the District Commit.
tee, Of the examination, said in a let
ter that it was his opinion a moderr
steel-arch bridge built in accordance
with the most exacting specification.
planned by Totten in 1917, and that II
would interfere less with the beautiful
scenery Of the Rock Greek Gorge T1os
| engineers report recommended certain
repair work, which was executed.
The story then moves on to 1881
| when the Commissioners secured an.
J preparations for preliminary plans anc
entered into a contract with ModjeSki
Masters & Chase for preliminary draw.
ings. at price of 100000. with stipu.
| lation that If any of the preliminary
| drawings were accepted, then the firm
would make working drawings of tn,
accepted design for an additiona
$4,000.
In addition to making preliminary de-
signs of both steel and masonry spans
the first $4,000 also included a plar
| for doing the work without interruption
to trafic. quantity and cost estimate
and a construction schedule, As well a,
other related matters.
| Approved With Reservations.
August 81. 1881. Mai d. A. Dawson
then acting Engineer Commissioner, no
/ titled the Fine Arts Commission tina
! the preliminary drawings were in a,
advanced state and, the statement goe
on:
"On September 5. 1881. the secretar,
| Of the Commission of Fine Arts in
formed the acting Engineer Commis
sioner that he had communicated Will
Mr.. Paul p. Cret md secured from hin