August 3, 1966

U.S. Capitol Needs New Face

The west front of the Capitol building at Washington, D.C., is badly cracked and sagging. Only an enormous cross of giant timbers holds up the masonry.

Tourists are shocked, as I was a couple of months ago, to discover that the nation's legislative halls are literally in danger of falling down.

Capitol Architect J. George Stewart, who five years ago finished restoring the building's east front, proposes a $34 million face lifting. While he's at it, Stewart wants to move the front out 44 to 88 feet to make room for some new offices, meeting rooms and dining areas.

A loud cry has come up from somewhere that the plans to expand the capitol would destroy its historic appearance, and that the building should be shored up artfully, as is. The Washington newspaper correspondents have been giving the statements of the "traditionalists" great play. So far, however, the voices are faceless.

As near as I can tell from reading between the lines, opposition to Stewart's plans come from the Washington Fine Arts Commission and disgruntled architects. The Fine Arts experts are consulted on every other District of Columbia project, from paintings to porticos. Congress, though, has reserved to itself the management of its home. A committee of Representatives and Senators jealously guards its prerogative to change its quarters.

The invocation of tradition is laughable. The Capitol, traditionally, grows like Topsy. Major enlargements or changes in appearance were initiated in 1801, 1804, 1812, 1815, 1818, 1824, 1851, 1861, 1864, 1867, 1916 and 1958.

This nation is still a growing country and its government headquarters reflects this dynamic process. George Washington, in colorful Freemasonry ceremony, laid the cornerstone for the Capitol in 1793. Congress moved in during the year 1800 and almost immediately authorized an expansion of the building.

The present dome — the third for the structure — was built in 1861. It was made oversize for the building then existing in expectation future expansions would catch up to its heroic proportions.

Despite the top-heavy superstructure, the "traditionalists" screamed when it was decided to move the east front out 32 feet and replace the crumbling sandstone of a century earlier. Comparison photographs before and after the rebuilding fails to reveal even a tiny difference in appearance between the two facades.

If Stewart and the Capitol Building Committee err, it is in so minutely preserving the 1916 appearance. There are only three or four architects left in the world who can design in the classic Greek style. As a result, these few architects get most of the consulting and architectural jobs involving the monumental architecture so popular in Washington.

Undoubtedly, the lucrative architectural fees could be spread around more if we would accept constantly changing styles.  I hold no particular brief for Greek architecture, but as that is the one we started with I'm in favor of sticking with it. The only Washington monstrosities are those that strayed from the original concept and catered to the taste of the times.

The only man in Washington that I trust with the public tax revenue is Rep. Frank T. Bow, ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee. He doesn't care any more about a dollar than his right eye, but he's a bird dog on foolish expenditures. So I called him to chat about the west front expansion, and the opposition to it.

"Pure demagoguery," Bow snorted. "Experts can't tell where we added on to the east front, and the new expansion will not alter the Capitol's appearance. The cascade of steps leading down to the Mall won't be touched. It is a necessary and worthwhile project."

That's good enough for me. When Bow, the terror of every Washington budget department, gives an expenditure his blessing you can be sure the tax payer is getting his money's worth.

The Capitol is the number-one tourist attraction in the United States. Thousands of visitors tramp through the building every day. The halls are so crowded that you frequently have to pass sideways in order to get through. The ruckus in the magnificent rotunda under the dome is deafening. Capitol employees are harried by the surging mass of people and consequently are sometimes less than pleasant.

Every American ought to visit the Capitol. It's an inspiring and reassuring experience. But, in truth, tourists are an all-fired nuisance. At no time in the history of the building has the impact of tourism been taken into account in. the Capitol's design.

Prominent in the present expansion plans are a lounge where building tours will be organized, a public dining room and adequate rest rooms.

I have visited the Capitol five times and on each occasion I am appalled at the noise and confusion made by so many people in so small a space. You can't eat in the Capitol unless you know your Congressman well enough that he will take you to the private dining room as his guest. Catering to the tourists are push cart vendors at the foot of the building steps.

Yet, I would not for one minute suggest any curtailment of visitors.

The solution is clear. Expand the Capitol to accommodate the number of people that actually use it — whether Congressmen, officials or tourists.

The dignity of the Capitol — a shrine to representative government — is now sorely compromised by the press of people. The hallowed rotunda, which should be awesome with its impressive reaches of space; has to be a staging area. Kids with crazy hats, women with shorts and halters, men in loud sport shirts are herded into groups along with the reverent and properly dressed folks. The huge dome reflects and amplifies the din. The cathedral becomes a Coney Island for want of any other place to do what has to be done.

I certainly hope Congress will not succumb to a self-seeking minority and thus fail to allow the Capitol to grow to reflect the majesty of the nation.

Author: Lindsey Williams