Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-12-04
Planners Study
Langley Report
Meeting Tomorrow
To Review GA Site

Meeting Tomorrow
To Review GA Site
A consultants report on the
desirability Of the Langley (Va)
site for the new Central In
telligence Agency building will
be studied by the National Cap
ital Regional Planning Council
meeting at . pm. tomorrow.
Under consideration will be
the report Of Gilmore D. Clarke,
planning consultant of New
York, which deals with the
Langley site preferred by CHA.
The session is slated for the
board room Of the National Cap
ital Planning Commission, In
terror Department Eighteenth
and c streets NV.
Most members of the council
yesterday were noncommittal on
their present reaction to the
Langley location. Some, however.
were outspoken in their views
and expressed sentiments largely
sectional:
John w. Brookfield. represent
ing Fairfax County: I'm in ia
Ivor Of the Langley site"
Lane Reserves Judgment
Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Lane,
representing the District gov
lernment: I'm just waiting to
resolve the evidence"
| Philip B. Hall. representing
Alexandria: Il lean toward the
Alexandria City Councils posi-
ltion. which is the new CHA.
Building should be erected in
Alexandria. But I do not want
to state my final position until
] hear the reports discussed
/ Max S. Wehrly, Council chair
m an. representing Arlington
County: II have no comment I'M
til ! hear the analysis of the re-
port which the council staff has
been working on"
| Herbert w. Reichelt, lawyer,
member of the Prince Georges
County Board Of Commission
ers: I'm not very favorably in
Iclined toward the Langley site.
Il feel the Langley site as chosen
is not necessary for a building of
that type"
Greenbelt Site Favored
81 am referring to the proper
roads, sewage facilities, electric
lily. telephones-all of which
would have to be brought in. In
addition to that. Chain Bridge.
which ! consider a natural bar
lrier, would have to be enlarged
Ior a new one built. New ap-
Iproaches would be very expen-
Isive. The present approaches
would be inadequate to take care
of the increased traffic.
II feel we have a good site at
Good Luck road and Edmonston
road, the Greenbelt site in Prince
Georges County"
William j. Cox, representing
Loudoun County: Il would
rather not commit myself until
I hear the arguments and
whether any new information is
produced. I want to examine the
petitions. want to keep an open
mind until all the facts are in"
Meeting Set Tomorrow
Herbert w. Wells. representing
that part of Prince Georges
County covered by the Maryland
National Capital Park and Plan
ming Commission: Members Of
the council agreed they would
not discuss the problem in pub
lie until all the information is in.
We will meet Monday to 60 over
the pertinent information. The
government agencies, including
Montgomery and Prince Georges
County and Alexandria, have
sent in their opinions and these
and other material will be dis
cussed thoroughly. We plan on
making a recommendation to the
National Capital Planning Com
mission"
(The Maryland agency which
Mr.. Wells represents, however,
officially went on record Thurs
day as opposing the reports
choice Of the Langley site and
instead urging consideration of
the site near Greenbelt. 1t voted
to make that view known at to-
morrow's council meeting)
Frederick A. Gutheim, repre-
Isenting upper Montgomery Coun-
ty: I'm against the Langley
site. ! think there are many
other suitable sites. In the in
terest Of regional development
as whole, we must find ways
OF keeping the Potomac River
free from developments which
in themselves would compromise
the use Of the river for water
supply. recreation and other pur-
poses. Other related develop
ments are generated, such as
denser residential use, CONNER
cial and industrial develop
inaentap