would propose substitute language that would say, "the fair rental value of the property leased.” This does not mean we have any argument at the present moment with the figure as being reason

sonable, but we think that this should be negotiated rather than written into the legislation. Mr. Gray. If I may interrupt you at this point, Mr. SecretarySecretary UDALL. Yes.

Mr. GRAY (continuing). Of course, as you know, in recommending a fixed figure, we were trying to give the Congress—who, I might say, is a little bit concerned about expenditures at this time—some idea of what this lease will cost.

Is it your feeling that the Department would be in a better position actually when they sit down and negotiate this lease if we merely put down a ceiling and leave the exact amount to negotiation?

Secretary UDALL. This is our common practice. Of course, we lease a lot of land, a lot of buildings, in my Department, and I think the general directive to us, or broad authority, is to pay whatever a fair rental is. This means we are going to have to negotiate it out. I would have no objection at all to the committee indicating, if that is its view, that the committee considers a figure of this kind a bargain and reasonable or whatever its view may be. But I think when we get down to determining it precisely, that this ought to be negotiated rather than be written into law. Mr. GRAY. Yes; I agree.

Secretary UDALL. I am not saying we personally have any views it is too high or too low, either, but it is simply that from the standpoint of sound business procedure for the Government

Mr. GRAY. What would be your feeling of leaving it up to the Secretary as to the amount, but putting a ceiling, say, of $3 million annually, which would give you some latitude when you negotiate?

Secretary UDALL. That would be another way to do it, and I would not have any serious objection to that.

Mr. GRAY. This was suggested by Mr. Knott, the General Services Administrator. He recommended we put a ceiling of $3 million annually, but leave the exact amount up to you.

Secretary UDALL. This would give the Congress some assurance of what it is buying and what this program would cost.

Mr. GRAY. When you actually sit down, if you get more than 4,000 parking places contemplated within the $3 million ceiling per year, you certainly would have that right, and I am sure would be interested in getting all you can.

So you would have no objection to writing in a ceiling, so long as we leave the negotiations up to the Department?

Secretary UDALL. That is correct.
Mr. GRAY. Fine. Thank

you. Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman

Mr. Gray. Mr. Secretary, I hate to keep interrupting, but we are trying to develop these points as we go along.

Mr. Schwengel, from Iowa.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have several questions on that $3 million, or up to $3 million obligation. We would recover a good share of that from the services and rentals income from the establishments in that Center. Is that not true?

Secretary UDALL. Let me have Mr. Sutton Jett, who is the Regional Director of the Park Service, answer. I would rather have him put this on the record.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. The reason I asked this question, is that I do not think the impression ought to be left that this is necessarily going to cost taxpayers $3 million a year.

Mr. JETT. Mr. Chairman, at the present time, Washington Terminal Co. realizes $359,000 from its own concession operations in the Union Station. While we made no economic feasibility study of this proposal, if you assume we would have an average of 2,000 automobiles parked in a 3,000- to 4,000-car parking garage per day, this would develop $730,000 a year. If we should average 2,500 automobiles a day, it would amount to $920,000 a year, which would give you a total of $1,261,000 on the basis of the present use of Union Station, that is, so far as the concessions are concerned. And it would be expected, certainly, that the use of the Union Station would increase greatly if the Visitor Center were located there.

Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAY. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Go ahead.

Mr. WRIGHT. I am not sure I understood the figures on which you predicated your assumption concerning parking. You said if we had 3,000 cars a day?

Mr. JETT. No, sir. If we had an average of 2,000 cars a day throughout the year, this would, at $1 a day

Mr. WRIGHT. At $1 a day?
Mr. JETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. That is the point I was trying to identify. I do not think we should charge a high price. I think $1 a day would be about right. Mr. JETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wright. We are not in business to make money off the tourists, really. One of the problems of Washington has been finding a place to park at less than excessive cost.

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Jett, do you not believe you are being a little conservative? If you have 4,000 parking places, a visitor comes in at 9 o'clock in the morning, visits the Capitol, he leaves; somebody else comes in in the afternoon. In all probability you will rent that space two or three times during a 24-hour period ? This could be at least double or triple of your estimate.

Mr. JETT. Yes, sir. I think I am being conservative. It is anybody's guess how many, but at these levels this is what it would produce.

Mr. GRAY. Right.
Mr. Schwengel.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. On page 30 of this fine brochure that you produced is a floor plan of space. I have several questions about that.

First, let's call attention to the railroad storage shops, railroad facilities, that are made available, and the transit station. It seems to me that is a large percent of that area given over to the railroad company.

Now, is it envisioned that they will pay us rent, then, on this space ?

Mr. JETT. This would not be contemplated, Congressman Schwengel. I think that, again, as the Secretary has indicated, these things would be the subject of negotiations, the spaces even, when you get down to the matter of developing a lease agreement.

Mr. GRAY. Will the gentleman yield on that point ?

This represents air space that the railroads now own, so really they would not be pre-empting any of the 330,000 square feet that are encompassed in the existing monument, as we call it, the existing station at the present time!

Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is the basement plan.
Mr. JETT. I am sorry, I thought this was the basement.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. This is not air space; this is actual space here.

Mr. GRAY. The Commission in their long deliberations with Washington Terminal Co., had never taken into account the so-called tunnel and basement area. We were talking about the station from the ground up, which encompasses two floors, the ground-level floor, the concurse, the so-called waiting room, and the second floor space. But, of course, this is a matter that will be subject to negotiation certainly.

Secretary UDALL. I think the answer Congressman Schwengel wants, as you will find when the designers present their report in a moment, is that we do not, in terms of this first phase at least, contemplate needing this basement area, and therefore presumably this would be available if the railroad needs it during this first phase of the project.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. If the railroad uses it, then they would be paying us rent, some comparable fair rent, for the space.

Secretary UDALL. Well, it might be that that is the way you would work it out, or you would reduce the rent that we pay. I mean this would be something that you would neogtiate.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Something negotiable?
Secretary UDALL. Yes.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I raise the question because actually, as I understood when we were negotiating, the whole area, basement and all would be given to the Government—the question was raised at one point, what areas are involved. As I understand it, the answer I got was,


course, all of it in that area would be subject to our control. Secretary UDALL. I would presume this is the way that we would want it, and that the railroad would want us, too, to have the entire present Union Station be under our control and management. But I mean we would work these details out. And I think you will see when the plan is presented how the whole thing would mesh together.

Mr. GRAY. You may proceed, sir.

Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two other points; I would like to get to the presentation, then take any further questions maybe after you have seen the presentation.

Our report does not take a specific stand with respect to the tax arrangements, and we defer to the views of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia on this matter.

We understand the District of Columbia Commissioners are opposed to the provisions that would exempt the improvement from taxation. That is another problem the committee has got to consider. I am simply saying we are not taking a position on that issue.

I would like to have Mr. Plavnick, who is our consultant, and his associate, Mr. Auerbach, make their presentation quickly, and then we can take any further questions at that time.

Mr. GRAY. Yes, Mr. Secretary.
Would you please state your name for the record ?

Mr. PLAVNICK. Yes, sir. My name is Robert L. Plavnick, planning consultant, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, if I may take a moment to introduce the remainder of our consulting team, I would appreciate it.

Mr. GRAY. We would be delighted.
Mr. PLAVNICK. First is Mr. Clark Thomas, Mr. Robert Morris-
Mr. GRAY. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. PLAVNICK. Mr. Seymour Auerbach, of Cooper & Auerbach.

I would just briefly like to make a couple of brief comments, and then Mr. Auerbach can explain the slides and we will hold the light for 1 second.

I believe in preparing this report, we had three objectives: first, to present the views of the various subcommittees and the committees; second, to provide the Commission with a design program which met the budget limitations that had been suggested by the Study Commission; and third, to provide you with an insight of the physical design that could be expected to make the Union Station into a viable and attractive Visitor Center.

If we may turn off the lights now, we can proceed into a brief session, if it is all right with you.

First, Mr. Chairman, just to orient everybody [slide] the Union Station is in the upper right corner. We here want to show the relationship to the Mall, to the proposed mass transit system, as you can see in the lines that cross through the area, and also to emphasize the Commission's recommendations as to why the Visitors Center was picked, the relationship of the Visitors Center to the transportation system, the historic quality of the building, the relationship to the places of interest at the Mall, the Capitol—and the second slide, please. [Slide.]

As we get a little more microscopic, you can see the relationship of the proposed garage and its size to the existing building.

The facility can easily be related to the proposed center leg freeway, which is now under construction, through the local street system, and a redesign of the Union Station Plaza.

I think one of the important points here is that we feel that the 4,000car garage, approximately 4,000-car garage, can be adequately served by the street system without additional ramps to other local streets within the area. The entire circulation system can be off the front of the building.

I think we feel as a group that this works extremely well as a visitor center.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like Mr. Auerbach to proceed, explaining the steps we have gone through and the design scheme that we have in the brochure before you.

Mr. GRAY. Yes, will you please come forward.
State your full name for the record, please.

Mr. AUERBACH. My name is Seymour Auerbach, partner of Cooper & Auerbach, architects in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, is it possible for me to use the pointer at the screen? Mr. GRAY. Yes. I am sure we can hear you.

Mr. AUERBACH. I guess the best way to explain the facilities that we have designed and the way they will be given is to sort of review

the problems that we saw, the opportunities we garnered from the various circumstances presented us and how they fit together. One of the first opportunities that presented itself was the fact that traffic survey indicated that we could approach the building from the front, rather than having some of the tourists from out of town coming in through some of the rather industrial sorts of streets that lie behind the station. We thought it would introduce them visually to the old landmark in quite a respectable manner.

Also in investigating the existing building, we found the architecture of the concourse, the portion at the rear of the building, which at the present time extends to this point [indicating], did not really match the basic building and some historical investigation indicated, and some consultation with various archeological experts, indicated to remove those ends of the concourse would not damage the building.

We were then presented with the fact all the people using the Visitor Center would now be entering it from the rear rather than the front, and this became sort of an inversion use of the building. [Slide.]

We then, from these points, decided by removing the ends of the concourse, we could keep all the ramps on our own property, on the railroad property, avoiding any complication with the District of Columbia Highway Department or Capitol Grounds, or what-have-youright in one package. There will be service around to the back. And by removing the proposed 4,000-car garage from the building, we could create a rather broad esplanade, or garden, and introduce the visitors to the Visitor Center in a respectable, gracious manner. [Slide.]

This is a cross-section that cuts right through the building complex. You can see how the various elements relate one to another, including a railroad station.

We feel the railroad station will be generating visitors by excursion trains. People from the Northeast Corridor, rapid rail system, will be coming into Washington in increasing numbers. We feel that facility should be incorporated as carefully and as graciously as possible into the whole.

So we took the 4,000-car garage, we moved it 90 feet from the existing building, about the width of the typical District of Columbia street, and raised it up in the air 45 feet, to provide a shed for the new railroad station. In other words, the garage is way up in the air and it becomes a shed in a contemporary manner, somewhat reminiscent of the old railroad sheds of Europe.

The railroad station ticketing and passenger facilities are in the midlevel above the tracks and below the garage.

Other advantages besides the involvement of all elements of one entity is an economic one. We are able, for instance, to provide a roof for the railroad station by using the garage. [Slide.]

In the plan, this is the plaza in front of the existing landmark. We have taken off that much concourse from either side (indicating]. We have created the esplanade. The ramps come up to Union Station level at this point and this is the garage itself, being four levels covering that much of the track area (indicating]. [Slide.]

This is a side view of the model, which is on the table, and I think it is a way to introduce us to just sort of a trip through the building if we were a tourist coming to the city, coming off the Center Leg Free

« ForrigeFortsett »