Contenido

En el momento en que se completó, se informó que el J. Edgar Hoover Building tenía 220 000 m²[41]​ hasta 235 500 m²[28]​ de espacio interior, de los cuales 93 000 m² eran espacio de oficina utilizable. Según información más actualizada proporcionada por el FBI, el edificio tenía 260 209 m² de espacio interior en 2010.[54]​ Sus comodidades internas incluyen:[23]​[55]​.

• - Un anfiteatro.

• - Un auditorio de 162 asientos.

• - Un taller de reparación de automóviles.

• - Una cancha de baloncesto de dos pisos.

• - Una cafetería en el octavo piso, con acceso a un jardín en la azotea.

• - Aulas.

• - Bóveda criptográfica.

• - Laboratorios para revelar tanto para fotografía fija como para películas cinematográficas.

• - Salas de ejercicio.

• - Una videoteca.

• - Un campo de tiro.

• - 7432 m² de espacio de laboratorio.

• - Una clínica médica.

• - Morgue.

• - Una imprenta.

• - Un patrón de prueba y rango balístico.

• - Un teatro de 700 asientos.

La estructura tiene tres plantas bajo rasante. Originalmente, solo se planificaron dos pisos subterráneos, pero se agregó un tercero durante el proceso de revisión.[28]​ Los dos pisos superiores de la estructura norte (E Street) albergaban la oficina de huellas dactilares.[41]​.

Las características especiales incluyeron un sistema de tubo neumático y un sistema de cinta transportadora para manejar correo y archivos.[23]​ Una "losa de protección" especial, reforzada y extra gruesa existía debajo del segundo piso para ayudar a proteger el edificio de las explosiones a nivel de la calle. Un foso seco lleno de grava corría a lo largo del edificio en la calle E NW.[56]​.

Los pilares de las esquinas contenían los servicios mecánicos (ascensores, HVAC, etc.). Se instaló un sistema de ascensor dual, uno para uso del público y otro para uso del personal. También existía un conjunto doble de pasillos en partes de los edificios.

El conjunto más pequeño de pasillos dobles era de uso público. Los ascensores públicos se conectaban solo a los pasillos públicos, aislando al público de los trabajadores del FBI.[28]​ Varias partes del pasillo público contenían mamparas de vidrio a través de las cuales el público podía ver al personal del FBI trabajando.[55]​.

El J. Edgar Hoover Building tiene un estilo arquitectónico conocido como brutalismo.[57]​[58]​ El término se deriva del término francés béton brut ("hormigón en bruto"); en las estructuras brutalistas, las superficies de hormigón sin procesar se utilizan comúnmente para crear "superficies rugosas y dramáticas y formas escultóricas monumentales".[59]​ El hormigón muestra las marcas de las toscas formas de madera en las que se vertió el hormigón líquido. El exterior está construido con hormigón prefabricado de color beige y hormigonado in situ.[28]​[60]​.

La intención era colocar láminas de hormigón pulido o granito en el exterior. Los muros exteriores se construyeron para acomodar estos accesorios, pero este plan se abandonó cuando la obra se acercaba a su finalización.[55]​ Las ventanas eran de vidrio teñido de bronce.[44]​ La línea de la cornisa es de 48,8 m de alto en el lado de la calle E.[61]​.

El interior, tal como se construyó, consistió en baldosas de vinilo blanco y techos y pisos de concreto pulido pintados de blanco. El patio al aire libre estaba pavimentado con piedra de color beige grisáceo y contenía una arcada para albergar a los empleados mientras se movían alrededor de su borde.

Critical reception

The J. Edgar Hoover Building was widely praised when it was first erected. The Washington Post architecture critic Wolf Von Eckardt called it "brave" and "bold" architecture in 1964. It was, he stated, "... masculine, no-nonsense architecture, appropriate for a national police headquarters. It is a promising start for the new Pennsylvania Avenue."[24] The Chicago Tribune critic, Paul Gapp, was more ambiguous. In 1978 he said that the uneven line of the cornice gave "the highest facades of the building a rather intimidating, temple-like appearance, vaguely reminiscent of an old set by Cecil B. Dé Mille." He also criticized the open second deck for having a dark and cavernous appearance and the interior for being "federal drab." But ultimately, Gapp wrote, while the FBI building "falls considerably below C. F. Murphy's overall level of design excellence[,]...it is not the visual disaster that some of its detractors make it out to be." He declared it mediocre architecture, but no worse than any other federal building built in Washington, D.C., in the last decade.[25] The New York Times architecture critic, Ada Louise Huxtable, was also unenthusiastic. Although he listed several of the building's flaws, he nevertheless felt that the design did a "superior job" of reconciling the numerous problems facing the site and the uses to which the structure would be put.[28]​.

Von Eckardt's opinions changed radically between his initial assessment in 1964 and the structure's completion in 1975.[1] At its inauguration, he called the building Orwellian, "alien to the spirit of the capital", and an "overdramatic and completely erroneous play of forms". He criticized the interior as "a drab factory with harsh lighting, endless hallways, hard floors and no visual relief." Von Eckardt did not blame the architects for the design, but rather the CFA.[56] Paul Goldberger, writing for The New York Times, echoed Von Eckardt's harsh assessment. He felt the design was banal and boring, "an arrogant, overbearing form of concrete that dares the visitor to approach." He noted that the tall, strong gathering on E Street was reminiscent of that of La Tourette's St. Mary's Convent, but lacked the dramatic hill behind it to give a counterpoint to the mass. "This building," he concluded, "turns its back on the city and replaces responsible architecture with a pompous and empty monumentality that, in the end, is not so much a symbol as a symptom, a symptom of something wrong in the government and just as wrong in the architecture."[60]​.

More recently, the J. Edgar Hoover Building has been heavily criticized for its aesthetics and impact on the city's urban life. In 2005, D.C. architect Arthur Cotton Moore" harshly condemned the building for creating a dead space in the heart of the city. "It creates a void along Pennsylvania Avenue. Given its elephantine size and hardness, it creates a black hole. Its concrete wall, without windows or life, is an urban sin. People should be walking down Main Street in America. No one walks by the FBI building."[62]​ The following year, Gerard Moeller and Christopher Weeks wrote in the that the FBI building was the "showboat of the neighborhood...ungainly, impolite..." They also blamed the structure's poor design for undermining the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue: "the impenetrable base, shadowy courtyard, and looming upper floors denote security and surveillance." The prototype of the Pennsylvania Avenue redevelopment plan, designed under the direction of Nathanial Owings, helped ensure that the entire plan would never be realized." Five years later, in 2011, Washington City Paper reporter Lydia DePillis noted that the building "has long been maligned as the ugliest building in downtown Washington, D.C.." Architecture for Dummies author Deborah Deborah K. Dietsch said in April 2012 that it was "disastrous", "callous" and "hostile", and that it (along with the James V. Forrestal Building) topped the list of the city's ugliest buildings. 1970."[66] Los Angeles Times travel writer Christopher Reynolds commented that it is "so ugly, local historians say, that it scared authorities into setting higher standards for pedestrian interaction with buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue."[67]

Work of art

The building's courtyard includes the sculpture Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity by Frederick Charles Shrady"). In January 1975, the Society of Former FBI Special Agents passed a resolution to create a monument to J. Edgar Hoover. The monument, which cost $125,000, was funded through contributions. The artist was selected through a design competition and the sculpture was dedicated on October 13, 1979. The piece, made in bronze (4.7 m wide and 1.7 m deep), shows three figures representing Fidelity, Courage and Integrity The figures are placed against a background of a large United States flag, which appears to flutter in the breeze. Fidelity, a woman, is on the right, sitting on the ground and facing the male figure of Bravery. To the left of Bravery is Integrity, a male figure kneeling on one knee, with his left hand on the. heart. He faces Bravery, who is flanked by the other two figures. The figures are simple with little detail. The sculpture rests on a 0.8 m by 3.1 m by 2.2 m rectangular base made of black marble slabs and mortar. The front of the base is carved and painted with the words "Faithfulness, Courage and Integrity." needs conservation treatment.[69]​.

Shortly after opening in 1975, the FBI closed the second-floor pedestrian observation deck for security reasons.[25] It has not been reopened to the public since. The agency suspended public tours of the building in the wake of the September 11 attacks.[70]​ Tours remained suspended as of April 3, 2019.[71]​.

Structural problems became apparent around 2001. That year, an engineering consultant discovered deterioration due to deferred maintenance and because many systems (HVAC, elevators, etc.) were reaching the end of their life cycle. The consultant rated the building as being in "poor condition" and said it was not at an "acceptable level for the industry".[72]

Additional studies were conducted over the next few years. In 2005, a real estate consultant reported that the FBI's dispersed workforce (then housed in the Hoover Building and 16 other leased sites throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area) and the Hoover Building's inefficient interior design were creating inefficiencies for the FBI. Safety upgrades, building system replacements and other renovations were suggested. At this time, the GSA estimated that it would take three years to develop a replacement headquarters and identify a site, and another three for design, construction, and move.[73]​ The FBI began studying the costs and logistics of moving its headquarters later that year.[74]​.

In 2006, the GSA estimated renovation costs for the Hoover Building at between $850 million and $1.1 billion.[75] Additional problems also became apparent that same year. A piece of the concrete façade came loose and fell onto the sidewalk of busy Pennsylvania Avenue. A contractor was hired to remove loose concrete from the exterior. Construction nets were hung around the upper floors to prevent additional pieces of concrete from crashing to the ground. The total cost of removing concrete and installing safety nets was $5.9 million.[76] In 2007, an architectural planning and design consultant reported that the cost of these renovations and the disruption to FBI work and personnel were not justifiable. The consultant recommended building a new FBI headquarters.[77]​.

In 2008, the GSA hired a real estate appraisal company to further evaluate the J. Edgar Hoover Building. The firm rated the building's construction as average and the building's condition as below average. The consultant also said it was inferior in both design and construction compared to other office buildings built at the same time. The appraiser also said that even if the GSA made all of the $660 million in urgent renovations identified, the J. Edgar Hoover Building would still not be classified as "Class A" office space.[78]

The onset of the Great Recession forced the FBI to suspend its efforts to build a new headquarters.[74] In 2010, the GSA downgraded the Hoover Building from a "core asset" (a structure whose useful life is greater than 15 years) to a "transitional asset" (a structure whose useful life is six to 15 years). In making the downgrade, the GSA decided to limit renovations to the building.[79]​.

In 2011, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) inspection of the Hoover Building revealed additional significant deterioration. Water seeping from the interior courtyard had corroded the concrete roof of the parking garage below. The GSA also reported that the basement was prone to flooding when it rained. GAO concluded that the building was "aging" and "deteriorating,"[81]​ that the original design of the Hoover Building was inefficient and could not be easily reconfigured to create new work space or foster interagency cooperation.[82]​.

The GAO report also identified significant security risks to FBI personnel in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area due to the limitations of the Hoover Building. The building is surrounded on all sides by busy city streets that are just a few meters from the structure. Additionally, because it is too small to accommodate the FBI's post-9/11 activities, the agency has rented space in 21 locations throughout the metropolitan area,[83]​ nine of which are in multi-tenant buildings.[84]​ The FBI admitted that its internal security forces are not stationed in these rented spaces, but simply patrol them periodically.[81]​.

The Government Accountability Office in November 2011 recommended four options for the J. Edgar Hoover Building:[81]​.

1. • Do nothing.

2. • Renew it for 14 years at a cost of 1.7 billion dollars.

3. • Demolish it and rebuild on the same site. This would take nine years and cost $850 million.

4. • Build a new headquarters somewhere else. This would take seven years and cost $12.2 billion.

The FBI, agreeing with the GAO report, said its top priority was to vacate the building and construct a new, larger headquarters capable of bringing the FBI's dispersed workforce under one roof, improving efficiency within the agency, and reducing operation and maintenance costs.[85]​.

Following on the heels of the GAO report, in December 2011, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted unanimously to authorize and direct GSA to identify a company to construct a secure rental facility containing up to 200,000 m² on a federally owned site of up to 22 ha within 2 miles of a Washington Metro train station to accommodate all FBI Regional Headquarters personnel. National Capital. Under this scheme, the federal government would provide guarantees to help finance the structure, which would then be leased to the federal government for two decades, after which the government would take possession of the building.[74][86] Three suburban counties, Fairfax and Loudoun in Virginia and Prince George's "Prince George's County (Maryland)") in Maryland, expressed interest in hosting the new headquarters.[87]​.

In April 2012, the Washington Business Journal speculated that a new FBI building could be built in a Washington, D.C., neighborhood in need of revitalization and urban renewal (such as Ward 7") or Ward 8"). At the time, GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Bob Peck said that GSA preferred to sell the Hoover Building and its site to a private developer and not specify whether the structure should be maintained or demolished.[65] But the Senate resolution was not adopted by the House of Representatives and did not become law in the 112th United States Congress. However, on November 29, 2012, the Fairfax Times reported that Fairfax County officials believed Congress would consider this legislation again in 2013, and the county decided to hire lobbyists to encourage construction of the new FBI headquarters at a government location near the Franconia–Springfield station.[88]

2013 Building Exchange Proposal

On December 3, 2012, the General Services Administration announced that it would consider proposals from private sector developers to exchange the J. Edgar Hoover Building for a larger parcel of land outside the city. The GSA asked interested developers to offer undeveloped property and cash for the Hoover Building. Acting GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini said the agency hoped the cash injection would allow the FBI to build its new headquarters. A deadline of March 4 was set for proposals.[89] A few weeks later, officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, said they were asking private developers to help them form a bid for the new FBI headquarters as well.[90]

The GSA held an "industry day" on January 17, 2013 to judge interest in the proposal and informally solicit ideas from developers. According to GSA officials, the crowd of 350 made the event "the largest for any offering of its kind in memory." Patrick G. Findlay, FBI assistant director for facilities and logistics services, said any new FBI headquarters must be at least 200,000 m² in area, accommodate 11,000 employees and contain 160,000 to 200 000 m² of land.

Acting GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini said GSA still believed it would be too expensive to renovate the J. Edgar Hoover Building or demolish it and rebuild it on the same site. Tangherlini also said the GSA would take into consideration the 2011 Senate resolution's requirements that any new FBI headquarters be located within a 2-mile (3.2 km) radius of a Metrorail station and no more than 2.5 miles (4 km) from the Capital Beltway (Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway)). The GSA announced a new deadline of March 24, 2013, for "expressions of interest" and said it was likely to issue a formal request for proposals by the end of 2013.

Prior to the GSA "industrial event", Washington, D.C. officials also expressed interest in keeping the FBI headquarters within city limits. D.C.)") (also known as the Anacostia Freeway) and the 11th Street Bridges").[92]​[93]​ Gray said on February 26 that, although he had conducted FBI relocation studies before, a new cost-benefit analysis of moving the FBI headquarters to Poplar Point would be complete in 60 days.

The Washington Post reported that Gray and D.C. Council member Tommy Wells") seemed to doubt the value of keeping the FBI in the District. "While politics may demand that the District not completely withdraw from the regional derby," said reporter Mike DeBonis, "a thoughtful look at the city's future growth might also require the conclusion that a high-security government complex is not a wise use of a DEVELOPMENT PLOT MAIN".[94]​.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) also joined the bidding for the new FBI headquarters. WMATA has 0.3 km² of land near its Greenbelt Metrorail station in Prince George's County. WMATA previously signed an agreement with real estate development company Renard (formerly Metroland Developers) under which the company would develop the vacant land (generating property rental income for WMATA). Metro officials proposed amending the agreement to allow Renard and Prince George's County officials to submit the land for GSA consideration.

If the proposal is accepted, Renard will be required to purchase the land at market value. Alternatively, Renard could transfer its development rights to Prince George's County, which could then submit a bid. WMATA officials noted that the site is served by Metrorail, and there are 3,700 parking spaces and 17 Metrobus bays&action=edit&redlink=1 "Metrobus (Washington, D.C.) (not yet redacted)") at the Greenbelt station. WMATA believed that the federal government would pay to improve access to the Capital Beltway "Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway)" (which is currently very limited) and upgrade WMATA facilities at the station (at no cost to the transit agency).[95]

Real estate developer Donald Trump expressed interest in redeveloping the Hoover Building in September 2013. Trump obtained a 60-year lease for the Old Post Office&action=edit&redlink=1 "Old Post Office (Washington, D.C.) (not yet redacted)") across the street in the summer of 2013, and plans to invest $200 million and plans to redevelop it into a luxury hotel. Trump estimated that the FBI would not vacate the building until 2016.[96]​.

Formal site selection process

On November 14, 2013, the GSA opened a formal process to select the site for a new FBI headquarters. The agency said it received 38 informal proposals from area governments and developers, which demonstrated enough interest in viable projects to move forward with the relocation. The agency set a December 17, 2013 deadline for proposals and said it would choose one or more locations for further discussion in early 2014. A single development and location partner was likely to be chosen by mid-2014, and a formal agreement would be signed in 2015.[97]​.

The GSA said its requirements for a new headquarters site included:[97]​.

• - 202,000 m² of land, or 200,000 m² of office and parking space.

• - A Washington Metro station 3.2 km away.

• - The Capital Beltway "Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway)") is 4 km away.

• - The site must be within the District of Columbia; the counties of Montgomery "Montgomery County (Maryland)") or Prince George "Prince George's County (Maryland)") in Maryland; those of Arlington "Arlington (Virginia)"), Fairfax, Loudoun or Prince William in Virginia; or the independent cities of Alexandria (Commonwealth of Virginia), Fairfax (Fairfax (Virginia), Falls Church, Herndon (Virginia), Manassas (Virginia), or Vienna) in Virginia.

• - Level V Security"), the highest standard required by the federal government.

• - Access to public services.

Due to their distance from Metrorail and the Beltway, Loudoun and Prince William counties were effectively eliminated from the competition.[97]​ Victor Hoskins, Washington, D.C.'s deputy mayor for planning and economic development, acknowledged that the city's proposed site, Poplar Point, was also eliminated due to small size and environmental concerns.[98]​ Several prominent Virginia politicians, including Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, U.S. Representatives Gerry Connolly), Jim Moran&action=edit&redlink=1 "Jim Moran (politician) (not yet drafted)") and Frank Wolf"), and Governor Terry McAuliffe have joined together to push for the new site to be built in Springfield "Springfield (Virginia)") after "site selection guidelines" but eliminated other northern Virginia locations." Maryland's entire congressional delegation has joined together to push for Prince George's County to be the new location.[99]​.

Environmental impact statement

In July 2014, the GSA announced that the FBI headquarters would move from downtown Washington to a suburban campus at a site in Greenbelt "Greenbelt (Maryland)") or Landover "Landover (Maryland)") in Maryland or in Springfield "Springfield (Virginia)"), Virginia.[100] In early September 2014, the GSA issued notice of my intention to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the consolidation of the proposed FBI headquarters and the exchange of the J. Edgar Hoover Building. The notice described the three site alternatives and announced a scoping process that GSA will conduct from September 8 to October 23, 2014. The scoping process is intended to help determine the alternatives to be considered and the scope of issues to be addressed, as well as to identify important environmental issues that GSA should address during the preparation of a draft EIS. The process includes four public open house meetings that GSA will hold in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., in late September and early October 2014, and opportunities for written comment.[101]​[102][103]​.

Recent developments

In January 2016, GSA issued Phase II of its Request for Proposals for the project.[104]​.

The University System of Maryland") has bolstered the offerings of Maryland sites with its National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism") by proposing a new Maryland Academy for Innovation and Homeland Security that would be a partnership between the FBI and the University of Maryland in Baltimore") and College Park.[104]​.

In October 2016, the final site selection for the project was announced, among the three finalist sites of Greenbelt, Maryland; Landover, Maryland; and Springfield, Virginia, would be announced in late 2016, although it was later delayed until spring 2017.[104] In July 2017, the GSA announced that it would not proceed with the project, citing a lack of adequate funding for property exchange and construction.[2][3]​.

In October 2018, some members of Congress sent a letter to Emily Murphy, administrator of the GSA, attributing the decision to abandon plans to relocate the FBI building to Donald Trump.[105]​.

• - Bednar, Michael J. L'Enfant's Legacy: Public Open Spaces in Washington. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

• - Glazer, Nathan. From a Cause to a Style: Modernist Architecture's Encounter With the American City. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007.

• - Government Accountability Office. Federal Bureau of Investigation: Actions Needed to Document Security Decisions and Address Issues with Condition of Headquarters Buildings. GAO-12-96. Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability Office, November 2011.

• - Gutheim, Frederick Albert and Lee, Antoinette Josephine. Worthy of the Nation: Washington D. C., From L'Enfant to the National Capital Planning Commission. 2d ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

• - Hess, Stephen. "The Federal Executive." In Daniel Patrick Moynihan: The Intellectual in Public Life. Robert A. Katzmann, ed. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

• - Hodgson, Godfrey. The Gentleman From New York: Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Biography. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000.

• - Kohler, Susan A. The Commission of Fine Arts: A Brief History, 1910–1995. Washington, D.C.: Commission of Fine Arts, 1996.

• - Legislative Reference Service. Digest of Public General Bills and Resolutions. Part 1. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

• - Moeller, Gerard Martin and Weeks, Christopher. AIA Guide to the Architecture of Washington, D.C. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Contenido

En el momento en que se completó, se informó que el J. Edgar Hoover Building tenía 220 000 m²[41]​ hasta 235 500 m²[28]​ de espacio interior, de los cuales 93 000 m² eran espacio de oficina utilizable. Según información más actualizada proporcionada por el FBI, el edificio tenía 260 209 m² de espacio interior en 2010.[54]​ Sus comodidades internas incluyen:[23]​[55]​.

• - Un anfiteatro.

• - Un auditorio de 162 asientos.

• - Un taller de reparación de automóviles.

• - Una cancha de baloncesto de dos pisos.

• - Una cafetería en el octavo piso, con acceso a un jardín en la azotea.

• - Aulas.

• - Bóveda criptográfica.

• - Laboratorios para revelar tanto para fotografía fija como para películas cinematográficas.

• - Salas de ejercicio.

• - Una videoteca.

• - Un campo de tiro.

• - 7432 m² de espacio de laboratorio.

• - Una clínica médica.

• - Morgue.

• - Una imprenta.

• - Un patrón de prueba y rango balístico.

• - Un teatro de 700 asientos.

La estructura tiene tres plantas bajo rasante. Originalmente, solo se planificaron dos pisos subterráneos, pero se agregó un tercero durante el proceso de revisión.[28]​ Los dos pisos superiores de la estructura norte (E Street) albergaban la oficina de huellas dactilares.[41]​.

Las características especiales incluyeron un sistema de tubo neumático y un sistema de cinta transportadora para manejar correo y archivos.[23]​ Una "losa de protección" especial, reforzada y extra gruesa existía debajo del segundo piso para ayudar a proteger el edificio de las explosiones a nivel de la calle. Un foso seco lleno de grava corría a lo largo del edificio en la calle E NW.[56]​.

Los pilares de las esquinas contenían los servicios mecánicos (ascensores, HVAC, etc.). Se instaló un sistema de ascensor dual, uno para uso del público y otro para uso del personal. También existía un conjunto doble de pasillos en partes de los edificios.

El conjunto más pequeño de pasillos dobles era de uso público. Los ascensores públicos se conectaban solo a los pasillos públicos, aislando al público de los trabajadores del FBI.[28]​ Varias partes del pasillo público contenían mamparas de vidrio a través de las cuales el público podía ver al personal del FBI trabajando.[55]​.

El J. Edgar Hoover Building tiene un estilo arquitectónico conocido como brutalismo.[57]​[58]​ El término se deriva del término francés béton brut ("hormigón en bruto"); en las estructuras brutalistas, las superficies de hormigón sin procesar se utilizan comúnmente para crear "superficies rugosas y dramáticas y formas escultóricas monumentales".[59]​ El hormigón muestra las marcas de las toscas formas de madera en las que se vertió el hormigón líquido. El exterior está construido con hormigón prefabricado de color beige y hormigonado in situ.[28]​[60]​.

La intención era colocar láminas de hormigón pulido o granito en el exterior. Los muros exteriores se construyeron para acomodar estos accesorios, pero este plan se abandonó cuando la obra se acercaba a su finalización.[55]​ Las ventanas eran de vidrio teñido de bronce.[44]​ La línea de la cornisa es de 48,8 m de alto en el lado de la calle E.[61]​.

El interior, tal como se construyó, consistió en baldosas de vinilo blanco y techos y pisos de concreto pulido pintados de blanco. El patio al aire libre estaba pavimentado con piedra de color beige grisáceo y contenía una arcada para albergar a los empleados mientras se movían alrededor de su borde.

Critical reception

The J. Edgar Hoover Building was widely praised when it was first erected. The Washington Post architecture critic Wolf Von Eckardt called it "brave" and "bold" architecture in 1964. It was, he stated, "... masculine, no-nonsense architecture, appropriate for a national police headquarters. It is a promising start for the new Pennsylvania Avenue."[24] The Chicago Tribune critic, Paul Gapp, was more ambiguous. In 1978 he said that the uneven line of the cornice gave "the highest facades of the building a rather intimidating, temple-like appearance, vaguely reminiscent of an old set by Cecil B. Dé Mille." He also criticized the open second deck for having a dark and cavernous appearance and the interior for being "federal drab." But ultimately, Gapp wrote, while the FBI building "falls considerably below C. F. Murphy's overall level of design excellence[,]...it is not the visual disaster that some of its detractors make it out to be." He declared it mediocre architecture, but no worse than any other federal building built in Washington, D.C., in the last decade.[25] The New York Times architecture critic, Ada Louise Huxtable, was also unenthusiastic. Although he listed several of the building's flaws, he nevertheless felt that the design did a "superior job" of reconciling the numerous problems facing the site and the uses to which the structure would be put.[28]​.

Von Eckardt's opinions changed radically between his initial assessment in 1964 and the structure's completion in 1975.[1] At its inauguration, he called the building Orwellian, "alien to the spirit of the capital", and an "overdramatic and completely erroneous play of forms". He criticized the interior as "a drab factory with harsh lighting, endless hallways, hard floors and no visual relief." Von Eckardt did not blame the architects for the design, but rather the CFA.[56] Paul Goldberger, writing for The New York Times, echoed Von Eckardt's harsh assessment. He felt the design was banal and boring, "an arrogant, overbearing form of concrete that dares the visitor to approach." He noted that the tall, strong gathering on E Street was reminiscent of that of La Tourette's St. Mary's Convent, but lacked the dramatic hill behind it to give a counterpoint to the mass. "This building," he concluded, "turns its back on the city and replaces responsible architecture with a pompous and empty monumentality that, in the end, is not so much a symbol as a symptom, a symptom of something wrong in the government and just as wrong in the architecture."[60]​.

More recently, the J. Edgar Hoover Building has been heavily criticized for its aesthetics and impact on the city's urban life. In 2005, D.C. architect Arthur Cotton Moore" harshly condemned the building for creating a dead space in the heart of the city. "It creates a void along Pennsylvania Avenue. Given its elephantine size and hardness, it creates a black hole. Its concrete wall, without windows or life, is an urban sin. People should be walking down Main Street in America. No one walks by the FBI building."[62]​ The following year, Gerard Moeller and Christopher Weeks wrote in the that the FBI building was the "showboat of the neighborhood...ungainly, impolite..." They also blamed the structure's poor design for undermining the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue: "the impenetrable base, shadowy courtyard, and looming upper floors denote security and surveillance." The prototype of the Pennsylvania Avenue redevelopment plan, designed under the direction of Nathanial Owings, helped ensure that the entire plan would never be realized." Five years later, in 2011, Washington City Paper reporter Lydia DePillis noted that the building "has long been maligned as the ugliest building in downtown Washington, D.C.." Architecture for Dummies author Deborah Deborah K. Dietsch said in April 2012 that it was "disastrous", "callous" and "hostile", and that it (along with the James V. Forrestal Building) topped the list of the city's ugliest buildings. 1970."[66] Los Angeles Times travel writer Christopher Reynolds commented that it is "so ugly, local historians say, that it scared authorities into setting higher standards for pedestrian interaction with buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue."[67]

Work of art

The building's courtyard includes the sculpture Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity by Frederick Charles Shrady"). In January 1975, the Society of Former FBI Special Agents passed a resolution to create a monument to J. Edgar Hoover. The monument, which cost $125,000, was funded through contributions. The artist was selected through a design competition and the sculpture was dedicated on October 13, 1979. The piece, made in bronze (4.7 m wide and 1.7 m deep), shows three figures representing Fidelity, Courage and Integrity The figures are placed against a background of a large United States flag, which appears to flutter in the breeze. Fidelity, a woman, is on the right, sitting on the ground and facing the male figure of Bravery. To the left of Bravery is Integrity, a male figure kneeling on one knee, with his left hand on the. heart. He faces Bravery, who is flanked by the other two figures. The figures are simple with little detail. The sculpture rests on a 0.8 m by 3.1 m by 2.2 m rectangular base made of black marble slabs and mortar. The front of the base is carved and painted with the words "Faithfulness, Courage and Integrity." needs conservation treatment.[69]​.

Shortly after opening in 1975, the FBI closed the second-floor pedestrian observation deck for security reasons.[25] It has not been reopened to the public since. The agency suspended public tours of the building in the wake of the September 11 attacks.[70]​ Tours remained suspended as of April 3, 2019.[71]​.

Structural problems became apparent around 2001. That year, an engineering consultant discovered deterioration due to deferred maintenance and because many systems (HVAC, elevators, etc.) were reaching the end of their life cycle. The consultant rated the building as being in "poor condition" and said it was not at an "acceptable level for the industry".[72]

Additional studies were conducted over the next few years. In 2005, a real estate consultant reported that the FBI's dispersed workforce (then housed in the Hoover Building and 16 other leased sites throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area) and the Hoover Building's inefficient interior design were creating inefficiencies for the FBI. Safety upgrades, building system replacements and other renovations were suggested. At this time, the GSA estimated that it would take three years to develop a replacement headquarters and identify a site, and another three for design, construction, and move.[73]​ The FBI began studying the costs and logistics of moving its headquarters later that year.[74]​.

In 2006, the GSA estimated renovation costs for the Hoover Building at between $850 million and $1.1 billion.[75] Additional problems also became apparent that same year. A piece of the concrete façade came loose and fell onto the sidewalk of busy Pennsylvania Avenue. A contractor was hired to remove loose concrete from the exterior. Construction nets were hung around the upper floors to prevent additional pieces of concrete from crashing to the ground. The total cost of removing concrete and installing safety nets was $5.9 million.[76] In 2007, an architectural planning and design consultant reported that the cost of these renovations and the disruption to FBI work and personnel were not justifiable. The consultant recommended building a new FBI headquarters.[77]​.

In 2008, the GSA hired a real estate appraisal company to further evaluate the J. Edgar Hoover Building. The firm rated the building's construction as average and the building's condition as below average. The consultant also said it was inferior in both design and construction compared to other office buildings built at the same time. The appraiser also said that even if the GSA made all of the $660 million in urgent renovations identified, the J. Edgar Hoover Building would still not be classified as "Class A" office space.[78]

The onset of the Great Recession forced the FBI to suspend its efforts to build a new headquarters.[74] In 2010, the GSA downgraded the Hoover Building from a "core asset" (a structure whose useful life is greater than 15 years) to a "transitional asset" (a structure whose useful life is six to 15 years). In making the downgrade, the GSA decided to limit renovations to the building.[79]​.

In 2011, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) inspection of the Hoover Building revealed additional significant deterioration. Water seeping from the interior courtyard had corroded the concrete roof of the parking garage below. The GSA also reported that the basement was prone to flooding when it rained. GAO concluded that the building was "aging" and "deteriorating,"[81]​ that the original design of the Hoover Building was inefficient and could not be easily reconfigured to create new work space or foster interagency cooperation.[82]​.

The GAO report also identified significant security risks to FBI personnel in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area due to the limitations of the Hoover Building. The building is surrounded on all sides by busy city streets that are just a few meters from the structure. Additionally, because it is too small to accommodate the FBI's post-9/11 activities, the agency has rented space in 21 locations throughout the metropolitan area,[83]​ nine of which are in multi-tenant buildings.[84]​ The FBI admitted that its internal security forces are not stationed in these rented spaces, but simply patrol them periodically.[81]​.

The Government Accountability Office in November 2011 recommended four options for the J. Edgar Hoover Building:[81]​.

1. • Do nothing.

2. • Renew it for 14 years at a cost of 1.7 billion dollars.

3. • Demolish it and rebuild on the same site. This would take nine years and cost $850 million.

4. • Build a new headquarters somewhere else. This would take seven years and cost $12.2 billion.

The FBI, agreeing with the GAO report, said its top priority was to vacate the building and construct a new, larger headquarters capable of bringing the FBI's dispersed workforce under one roof, improving efficiency within the agency, and reducing operation and maintenance costs.[85]​.

Following on the heels of the GAO report, in December 2011, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted unanimously to authorize and direct GSA to identify a company to construct a secure rental facility containing up to 200,000 m² on a federally owned site of up to 22 ha within 2 miles of a Washington Metro train station to accommodate all FBI Regional Headquarters personnel. National Capital. Under this scheme, the federal government would provide guarantees to help finance the structure, which would then be leased to the federal government for two decades, after which the government would take possession of the building.[74][86] Three suburban counties, Fairfax and Loudoun in Virginia and Prince George's "Prince George's County (Maryland)") in Maryland, expressed interest in hosting the new headquarters.[87]​.

In April 2012, the Washington Business Journal speculated that a new FBI building could be built in a Washington, D.C., neighborhood in need of revitalization and urban renewal (such as Ward 7") or Ward 8"). At the time, GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Bob Peck said that GSA preferred to sell the Hoover Building and its site to a private developer and not specify whether the structure should be maintained or demolished.[65] But the Senate resolution was not adopted by the House of Representatives and did not become law in the 112th United States Congress. However, on November 29, 2012, the Fairfax Times reported that Fairfax County officials believed Congress would consider this legislation again in 2013, and the county decided to hire lobbyists to encourage construction of the new FBI headquarters at a government location near the Franconia–Springfield station.[88]

2013 Building Exchange Proposal

On December 3, 2012, the General Services Administration announced that it would consider proposals from private sector developers to exchange the J. Edgar Hoover Building for a larger parcel of land outside the city. The GSA asked interested developers to offer undeveloped property and cash for the Hoover Building. Acting GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini said the agency hoped the cash injection would allow the FBI to build its new headquarters. A deadline of March 4 was set for proposals.[89] A few weeks later, officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, said they were asking private developers to help them form a bid for the new FBI headquarters as well.[90]

The GSA held an "industry day" on January 17, 2013 to judge interest in the proposal and informally solicit ideas from developers. According to GSA officials, the crowd of 350 made the event "the largest for any offering of its kind in memory." Patrick G. Findlay, FBI assistant director for facilities and logistics services, said any new FBI headquarters must be at least 200,000 m² in area, accommodate 11,000 employees and contain 160,000 to 200 000 m² of land.

Acting GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini said GSA still believed it would be too expensive to renovate the J. Edgar Hoover Building or demolish it and rebuild it on the same site. Tangherlini also said the GSA would take into consideration the 2011 Senate resolution's requirements that any new FBI headquarters be located within a 2-mile (3.2 km) radius of a Metrorail station and no more than 2.5 miles (4 km) from the Capital Beltway (Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway)). The GSA announced a new deadline of March 24, 2013, for "expressions of interest" and said it was likely to issue a formal request for proposals by the end of 2013.

Prior to the GSA "industrial event", Washington, D.C. officials also expressed interest in keeping the FBI headquarters within city limits. D.C.)") (also known as the Anacostia Freeway) and the 11th Street Bridges").[92]​[93]​ Gray said on February 26 that, although he had conducted FBI relocation studies before, a new cost-benefit analysis of moving the FBI headquarters to Poplar Point would be complete in 60 days.

The Washington Post reported that Gray and D.C. Council member Tommy Wells") seemed to doubt the value of keeping the FBI in the District. "While politics may demand that the District not completely withdraw from the regional derby," said reporter Mike DeBonis, "a thoughtful look at the city's future growth might also require the conclusion that a high-security government complex is not a wise use of a DEVELOPMENT PLOT MAIN".[94]​.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) also joined the bidding for the new FBI headquarters. WMATA has 0.3 km² of land near its Greenbelt Metrorail station in Prince George's County. WMATA previously signed an agreement with real estate development company Renard (formerly Metroland Developers) under which the company would develop the vacant land (generating property rental income for WMATA). Metro officials proposed amending the agreement to allow Renard and Prince George's County officials to submit the land for GSA consideration.

If the proposal is accepted, Renard will be required to purchase the land at market value. Alternatively, Renard could transfer its development rights to Prince George's County, which could then submit a bid. WMATA officials noted that the site is served by Metrorail, and there are 3,700 parking spaces and 17 Metrobus bays&action=edit&redlink=1 "Metrobus (Washington, D.C.) (not yet redacted)") at the Greenbelt station. WMATA believed that the federal government would pay to improve access to the Capital Beltway "Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway)" (which is currently very limited) and upgrade WMATA facilities at the station (at no cost to the transit agency).[95]

Real estate developer Donald Trump expressed interest in redeveloping the Hoover Building in September 2013. Trump obtained a 60-year lease for the Old Post Office&action=edit&redlink=1 "Old Post Office (Washington, D.C.) (not yet redacted)") across the street in the summer of 2013, and plans to invest $200 million and plans to redevelop it into a luxury hotel. Trump estimated that the FBI would not vacate the building until 2016.[96]​.

Formal site selection process

On November 14, 2013, the GSA opened a formal process to select the site for a new FBI headquarters. The agency said it received 38 informal proposals from area governments and developers, which demonstrated enough interest in viable projects to move forward with the relocation. The agency set a December 17, 2013 deadline for proposals and said it would choose one or more locations for further discussion in early 2014. A single development and location partner was likely to be chosen by mid-2014, and a formal agreement would be signed in 2015.[97]​.

The GSA said its requirements for a new headquarters site included:[97]​.

• - 202,000 m² of land, or 200,000 m² of office and parking space.

• - A Washington Metro station 3.2 km away.

• - The Capital Beltway "Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway)") is 4 km away.

• - The site must be within the District of Columbia; the counties of Montgomery "Montgomery County (Maryland)") or Prince George "Prince George's County (Maryland)") in Maryland; those of Arlington "Arlington (Virginia)"), Fairfax, Loudoun or Prince William in Virginia; or the independent cities of Alexandria (Commonwealth of Virginia), Fairfax (Fairfax (Virginia), Falls Church, Herndon (Virginia), Manassas (Virginia), or Vienna) in Virginia.

• - Level V Security"), the highest standard required by the federal government.

• - Access to public services.

Due to their distance from Metrorail and the Beltway, Loudoun and Prince William counties were effectively eliminated from the competition.[97]​ Victor Hoskins, Washington, D.C.'s deputy mayor for planning and economic development, acknowledged that the city's proposed site, Poplar Point, was also eliminated due to small size and environmental concerns.[98]​ Several prominent Virginia politicians, including Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, U.S. Representatives Gerry Connolly), Jim Moran&action=edit&redlink=1 "Jim Moran (politician) (not yet drafted)") and Frank Wolf"), and Governor Terry McAuliffe have joined together to push for the new site to be built in Springfield "Springfield (Virginia)") after "site selection guidelines" but eliminated other northern Virginia locations." Maryland's entire congressional delegation has joined together to push for Prince George's County to be the new location.[99]​.

Environmental impact statement

In July 2014, the GSA announced that the FBI headquarters would move from downtown Washington to a suburban campus at a site in Greenbelt "Greenbelt (Maryland)") or Landover "Landover (Maryland)") in Maryland or in Springfield "Springfield (Virginia)"), Virginia.[100] In early September 2014, the GSA issued notice of my intention to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the consolidation of the proposed FBI headquarters and the exchange of the J. Edgar Hoover Building. The notice described the three site alternatives and announced a scoping process that GSA will conduct from September 8 to October 23, 2014. The scoping process is intended to help determine the alternatives to be considered and the scope of issues to be addressed, as well as to identify important environmental issues that GSA should address during the preparation of a draft EIS. The process includes four public open house meetings that GSA will hold in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., in late September and early October 2014, and opportunities for written comment.[101]​[102][103]​.

Recent developments

In January 2016, GSA issued Phase II of its Request for Proposals for the project.[104]​.

The University System of Maryland") has bolstered the offerings of Maryland sites with its National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism") by proposing a new Maryland Academy for Innovation and Homeland Security that would be a partnership between the FBI and the University of Maryland in Baltimore") and College Park.[104]​.

In October 2016, the final site selection for the project was announced, among the three finalist sites of Greenbelt, Maryland; Landover, Maryland; and Springfield, Virginia, would be announced in late 2016, although it was later delayed until spring 2017.[104] In July 2017, the GSA announced that it would not proceed with the project, citing a lack of adequate funding for property exchange and construction.[2][3]​.

In October 2018, some members of Congress sent a letter to Emily Murphy, administrator of the GSA, attributing the decision to abandon plans to relocate the FBI building to Donald Trump.[105]​.

• - Bednar, Michael J. L'Enfant's Legacy: Public Open Spaces in Washington. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

• - Glazer, Nathan. From a Cause to a Style: Modernist Architecture's Encounter With the American City. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007.

• - Government Accountability Office. Federal Bureau of Investigation: Actions Needed to Document Security Decisions and Address Issues with Condition of Headquarters Buildings. GAO-12-96. Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability Office, November 2011.

• - Gutheim, Frederick Albert and Lee, Antoinette Josephine. Worthy of the Nation: Washington D. C., From L'Enfant to the National Capital Planning Commission. 2d ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

• - Hess, Stephen. "The Federal Executive." In Daniel Patrick Moynihan: The Intellectual in Public Life. Robert A. Katzmann, ed. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

• - Hodgson, Godfrey. The Gentleman From New York: Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Biography. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000.

• - Kohler, Susan A. The Commission of Fine Arts: A Brief History, 1910–1995. Washington, D.C.: Commission of Fine Arts, 1996.

• - Legislative Reference Service. Digest of Public General Bills and Resolutions. Part 1. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

• - Moeller, Gerard Martin and Weeks, Christopher. AIA Guide to the Architecture of Washington, D.C. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.