EXHIBIT III NATIONAL CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, Hon. CARL HAYDEN, DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: This is in response to your inquiry of October 21, 1965, concerning the feasibility of including in rapid transit plans a station within or contiguous to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. In our earlier letter of October 25, we stated our intention to examine the many questions involved in this proposal and we are now able to report on the results of our efforts. The transit system authorized by Congress will provide the Center with service from the station authorized by Congress at 23d and H Streets NW. Service to the Center will be in keeping with the objective standards by which the Agency designed the downtown distribution pattern which appears in the Agency's report of November 1, 1962. Then and now we feel it would be inconsistent to design the system to render specialized service. Rapid transit serves best when it serves the greatest number of people daily and in the usual course of community affairs. To obtain maximum revenues for the heavy investment required for the system-and to render maximum service to the community-a system was designed primarily to serve commuters and shoppers having downtown as their destinations. These will be constantly recurring trips; on an annual basis the time saved by the public will be immense. Certain anchor points for the system were selected, one of them the Capitol. Another anchor point is Rosslyn, Va., an impressive center of employment and development only 4 minutes from downtown Washington by transit and an ideal base point for transit lines to be extended ultimately throughout northern Virginia It is the line from downtown to Rosslyn which will serve the cultural Center and provide service according to the standards adopted for the entire system. We In the 1962 plan, the station locations in the center city were selected on the basis of circumstances expected to obtain in the year 1980, using National Capital Regional Planning Council, Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, and local planning agency projections concerning the extent and location of employment. Upon reference to the 1962 report, it will be seen that 68 percent of downtown jobs in 1980 would be within a 5-minute walk (1,250 feet) of a transit station, and 92 percent of those jobs within an 8-minute walk (2,000 feet). find a walk of approximately 6 minutes required for a distance of somewhat under 1,500 feet from our 23d and H Street station to the Cultural Center. Thus, although not situated immediately adjacent to a station of the system, the Center will be well within the normal service area of a station already authorized by Congress. The distance of the Center from the nearest station is consistent with the distance of various other attractions in the city from other center-city stations. In their own interests, the Center may wish to enhance the relationship to the station by constructing a pleasant aboveground walkway from the station to the Center along the principal avenue of approach. Such a walk would afford patrons arriving by transit a stimulating view of the building and its riverside setting. It may be worth mention that a very handsome approach for pedestrians has been planned by the staff of the National Capital Planning Commission. In contrast, if the station were adjacent to or under the Center, the approach for patrons would be through the basement of the building with no opportunity for them to experience and to respond to the beauty of the Center and to the meaning of the Center as a memorial to President Kennedy. In the planning activities of the agency it has been contemplated, and it remains so, that the Rosslyn line is to be placed in operation in 1972, with construction to begin in 1970. Design of the Rosslyn line and its stations will be initiated about 2 years before construction begins. As with stations on other lines, the exact location of the station proposed at 23d and H Streets has not been finally determined upon, and location will be fixed as engineering and other details affecting location are more precisely determined. The determination of these details is, of course, a continuing process and decisions thus far have been based upon matters already ascertained. Present station locations and system alinement have been selected on the basis of objective standards as to service, prudence in investment, and feasibility and efficiency of engineering and operations. Any change in the proposals must take into account the effect upon investment, the effect upon operating costs, and the nature of the service which might be accomplished by the change. To provide specialized transportation service to the Center would be very costly in terms of initial construction and would increase operating and maintenance costs throughout the years. In our reexamination of the alinement of the Rosslyn line and its stations, we continue to feel that the physical task and the costs which would be involved in rerouting the authorized system to serve a station in the basement of the Cultural Center would be of formidable dimension. It would be necessary to reroute the line to proceed southwesterly from the presently authorized station at 18th and H Streets NW., under approximately 41 parcels of property (including 20 parcels owned by the George Washington University) and to enter the alinement of F Street at 21st Street. A new station would be required in the vicinity of 22d Street and F Street to replace the station lost at 23d and H Streets. The route would then continue underground to the Cultural Center station and thence under the Potomac River to the presently authorized station beneath Rosslyn. This change in the system would increase construction, operating, maintenance, and land-acquisition costs. Revenues would not be increased to compensate for those added costs. The quality of service rendered to 30 million riders each year on the presently authorized line would be impaired to serve the modest additional number of Cultural Center patrons who might ride rail transit if a station were in the basement of the Center instead of at nearby 23d and H Streets. Increased construction costs would result from the longer subway construction (1,360 feet), the additional Cultural Center station, and more difficult engineering problems relating to curves, grades, and geological conditions. The increased cost of this realinement is estimated at $12.3 million, but this added cost will be even greater if (1) The George Washington University and others insist upon compensation for easements on a "highest and best use" or other expensive basis; (2) Buildings in the Columbia Plaza development currently under construction must be underpinned; (3) Detailed soils investigation of the difficult geological site of a Cultural Center station disclose further problems in addition to those currently assumed. Increased operating and maintenance costs would result from the added stop and the longer run. Service would be slowed approximately 14 minutes between the 18th and H Street station and northern Virginia, due to the increased running time and additional stopping time. Slower service invariably decreases patronage and hence decreases revenues, all other factors being equal. In our view, no increase in transit patronage can be expected from realinement. The number of new passengers picked up on the realined route would be offset by an approximately equal number of passengers lost from the 23d and H Street community and those lost due to slower travel times, while the intermittent rail transit volume from Cultural Center patrons would be speculative since attendance at the Center would vary with the "box office" success of the various attractions. And, whatever degree of success the Center might enjoy, with rail transit available at the 23d and H Street station within reasonable walking distance of the Center, rail patrons will be assured of service wihtout the expense which realinement would entail. It is my sincere hope that this discussion will provide you with helpful information. The agency is at your disposal for any additional information or assistance you may require. Sincerely yours, WALTER J. MCCARTER, Administrator. EXHIBIT IV SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D.C., November 22, 1965. Mr. ROGER L. STEVENS, Chairman of the Board, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Washington, D.C. DEAR ROGER: I am writing to raise with you once again issues of the most fundamental importance for the John F. Kennedy Center. Public Law 85-874, which established the National Cultural Center, instructs the Board to (1) Present classical and contemporary music, opera, drama, dance, and poetry from this and other countries; (2) Present lectures and other programs; (3) Develop programs for children and youth and the elderly (and for other age groups as well) in such arts designed specifically for their participation, education, and recreation; and (4) Provide facilities for other civic activities at the Cultural Center. Writing of the Center, President Kennedy said: "It was not conceived as a group of halls and theaters to benefit Washington audiences alone. ***The Center will, I hope, become in the broadest sense an educational as well as a cultural institution. ***" It was in the spirit of this mandate and of this hope that the Regents of the Smithsonian welcomed the decision to establish the Center as a bureau of the Institution. They stood ready, as they do today, to offer all possible assistance to the Board and officers of the Center in the furtherance of these high objectives. I am writing now in the conviction that, unless positive steps are taken immediately, we will fail to take full advantage the magnificent opportunities implicit in the Center. In March 1964, I wrote to you as President of the Board to call attention to some of the educational possibilities of the Center and to record the Smithsonian's special interest in assisting in the realization of these possibilities. In the intervening months, I have continued my efforts to focus attention on this aspect of planning for the Center. In April of this year, for example, I wrote to you: "I would like to reemphasize at this time the interest which we at the Smithsonian have in plans for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. "The Smithsonian is particularly interested in cooperating with the Kennedy Center in off-hour and off-season programing of an educational nature to supplement the normal programing at the Center." At that time I forwarded an 8-page memorandum outlining possible educational activities. Again in May I wrote, "As you know, the Smithsonian Institution is much interested in the possibilities of the Center's educational potential." At that time I suggested the possibility of the appointment of an assistant or associate director responsible "for educational programs, for lectures, and similar public events providing for contact with the visitors." Now that we seem to be nearing the time for the appointment of the Center's artistic director, and now that physical construction of the Center is about to begin, I feel that I must once again raise the general question of the objectives and programs of the Center. I cannot emphasize too strongly my conviction that what is at stake here is not the question of whether some educational activities will be included here and there in the Center's program, but rather the question of what the Center itself is all about. Unless all of our actions the formulation of the program, the choice of director, the design of the physical facilities are informed by an imaginative regard for creativity and a deep sense of social responsibility, I very much fear that all our energies and expenditures will produce nothing but a lifeless marble shell. An examination of the plans for the building and of the Program Committee's guidelines suggests very strongly that the Center is now coming to be viewed primarily as a showcase for works created somewhere else and brought here briefly for the pleasure or edification of local audiences. Only the most limited provision has been made for rehearsal rooms, workshops, studios, and the other facilities required for the creation of works of art, rather than simply for their performance. This impression that the Center is thought of as a passive receptacle for shows from elsewhere, rather than as an active generator of new works and new productions, is confirmed by the guidelines: "The Center*** should seek out and sponsor the best in American music, theater, opera, dance, and film; it should provide a sendoff for American performing groups sent abroad * * * it should open its facilities to foreign governments *** et cetera." [Emphasis added.] None of these is in any way an unworthy or inappropriate activity, but what is striking is that the guidelines leave so little room for anything more positive or creative. Accepting for the moment the notion that the Center should be devoted to the display rather than the creation of works of performing art, we may ask to whom these works will be displayed. Do the guidelines offer any clues as to the nature of the proposed audience? The seventh guideline states, in rather equivocal language, that the Center "should make available a fair amount of seats in the performing halls at low prices for students, young people, and those in straitened circumstances." Does "fair" mean "equitable," and, if so, what is an equitable amount of seats? Or, does "fair" mean just "passable"? And do we propose to administer a means test at our ticket windows? Taken together, the architecture and the guidelines give the impression of a grudging acceptance of the necessity of doing something for some of those who cannot or do not normally frequent our centers of culture. What is totally absent is an emphatic statement of a determination to do something for this, the great majority of our city and our country. And "something" in this context must mean more than merely reducing prices. What, then, of the legislative mandate to develop programs "designed specifically for *** participation, education, and recreation"? Here again the guidelines are almost completely silent. Apart from passing references to "exhibits relating to the performing arts," and "educational programs in the arts," nothing is said of any of the possible programs that might be used to involve large numbers of people in the Center's activities. On the contrary, the guidelines explicitly state that: "The Center, while recognizing its responsibility to welcome and encourage Washington-based performing groups, should not give these groups permanent prerogatives or facilities." Although the precise meaning of these words is unclear, the tone again is one of acceptance of a minimal responsibility. This refusal to make any commitment to local performing groups seems virtually to eliminate all possibility of repertory companies and of wide popular participation in the artistic work of the Center. Taken together, the impression of the proposed activities of the Center deviates widely from objectives of the Smithsonian Institution in its concern for all the people. The concept of providing a splendid showcase for the very best performances is certainly not a contemptible one. By all means let some of the 52 weeks of the year be devoted to this objective. But if all we are doing is creating a more lavish setting for what already goes on in Washington, or saving people the trouble of traveling to New York to go to the theater or the opera, surely we are neglecting the great opportunity that has been given to us to do something that will really make a difference in the life of the Capital and of the Nation. It is possible here only to suggest a few of the things that might be done to meet the responsibilities implicit in the direction of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. One thinks, for example, of the imaginative Théâtre National Populaire of Jean Vilar. Here, in a single weekend, at a cost of about $4, one may attend a concert, have a cold dinner, and see a play on Saturday, and on Sunday take part in a discussion involving actors and audience, attend a matinee, an evening performance, and a dance. Here special school matinees, including discussions of the play to be performed, are regularly held; here the building and snackbar are opened at 6:30 and there is an early curtain so that theatergoers may get home on public transportation, and in time to work the next day; here ordinary performances cost from 20 cents to $1. Here, in short, a deliberate and imaginative effort has been made to involve the poor, and the rest of the nor theater-going population. Now a similar Théâtre Lyrique Populaire, also under Vilar's direction, is being built for opera performances. While Vilar's scheme is not something to be slavishly imitated, it does show an awareness of public needs and an imaginative determination to meet these needs which would be welcome in the current planning for the Kennedy Center. Surely some program of this kind could be developed for the people of Washington and, particularly in the summertime, for the hundreds of thousands of tourists who come here to visit often from parts of the country in which performances of high quality are simply not available. Attractive "packages" of artistic performances, educational events, and recreation could be devised; tickets could be made readily available throughout the country-perhaps at post offices-at modest prices; other cultural, educational, and recreational attractions of the Washington area could be included in these "packages." As another example, one thinks of the extraordinary success of New York City's Shakespeare in the Park and Philharmonic in the Park programs, which have attracted huge audiences by making free performances available. Should not the magnificent facilities of the Kennedy Center be used, at least occasionally, in the same way? The French-American Festival under the direction of Lukas Foss at the Lincoln Center last summer attracted a new kind of audience to Philharmonic Hall. Washington is surely a natural setting for events of this sort. Again, one thinks of the almost unlimited educational opportunities at all levels that might be offered by the Center. Playwrights and composers inresidence, performances by and for children, exhibits, classes, lectures, apprenticeships-all these should be viewed not as ancillary activities to be reluctantly fitted in among the "important" events of the year, but rather as the very heart of the Center's program. 슈 100 200 The direction of a center for the performing arts raises choices strikingly similar to those that are faced by every museum director: choices between passive display and active education, between mere curatorship and creative scholarship, between stylish exclusiveness and broad inclusiveness. It is vitally important, I repeat, that the Kennedy Center, like the Smithsonian itself, should make its choices in a mood of imaginative creativity and with a deep sense of its responsibility to the local community and to the Nation. Sincerely yours, S. DILLON RIPLEY, Secretary. Site authorized by Congress in the National Cultural Center Land incorporated within building line of Kennedy Center Plan Showing Part of Kennedy Center Building on Land Not Authorised by Congress. Based on drawing published on page 132, Report of Hearings held on April 22 and 23, 1958, before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate on 8. 3335, A Bill to Provide for a National Capital Center of the Performing Arts. Prepared by: The Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. |