More than 100 residents turned out for Wednesday night’s community meeting on the Rumsey Renovation plans which was held in the North Hall of Eastern Market.
City Scales Back Rumsey Aquatic Center Plan
by Larry Janezich
Posted March 13, 2025
Thursday night, DPR and DGS presented design options for renovation of the Rumsey Aquatic Center which were substantially different from the more ambitious plans of CM Charles Allen, who secured additional funding for the project based on those plans.
The boost in $15 million in funds for the Rumsey renovation was intended to support a new second story with community amenities like a senior center with a tech lounge, a business incubator space, and an indoor fitness center. These were in addition to the DPR’s initial budget ($20 million) to expand and renovate the swimming pool which would occupy the first floor of the new building.
That’s not what the designers brought back to the community.
Instead, developers presented to the community three slightly different proposals, all of them without a build-out on the second floor, as well as a host of reasons why the original vision could not be realized. In addition to what they characterized as a limited overall budget of $35 million, the designers cited the cost of LEED/net zero certification as a significant constraint.
Here’s Allen’s reaction:
“Two years ago, I asked DPR and DGS leaders what it would cost to build a second floor to expand services and programs while modernizing Rumsey pool. They gave me an exact number, and I found that exact money – that’s the budget we have. It’s clear from tonight’s meeting there’s not enough space on one floor to meet the needs of the community here, and I’m frustrated how quickly they’re trying to walk away from the fully funded second floor. I will work to get them back on track and believe we will find a solution to deliver the generational project everyone wants.”
ANC6B Commissioner Jerry Sroufe, in whose single member district the Rumsey Center falls, said “if you only have three options and no second story that’s a bitter pill to swallow. I didn’t think they were very responsive to the concerns raised and I don’t think that the things they said they couldn’t do because of various restrictions are true. I am sure they could do things differently if they wanted to – exceptions can be made and they didn’t make any. I didn’t like any of the options in particular. It seems they wanted one story.”
Two polls taken during the meeting to which there were 66 respondents showed a clear preference for bigger and better pool space and fewer amenities. Regarding the possible amenities squeezed into the first floor – a hot tub, a yoga studio, and a fitness studio – a 40% plurality chose “none of the above.”
The three options can be viewed here: https://dgs.dc.gov/page/rumsey-aquatic-center
Go to “March 12 Community Presentation.”
Roy Philips, a neighbor and frequent user of Rumsey Pool who attended last night’s meeting, said that “the presenters didn’t provide options that capture what the community is looking for. In building options they have lots of constraints …. Due to the constraints they said all they can do is build a new structure that is roughly the size and footprint as the current building. They can make the pool about 12 feet wider to accommodate 2 more swimming lanes. There were no options to extend the building into the plaza or with a second floor…It seems like they are focused on all the impediments rather than a vision of what the community really wants.”
Here’s the sequence of events for the next steps:
TBD Community Meeting 3 – Design Update.
TBD Community Meeting Final Design.
(Permitting Phase)
TBD Community Meeting Construction Kick off.
TBD Construction Updates
CAPITOL HILL CORNER 
Thank you Mr Janezich for the succinct and accurate summary.
It would seem that the District might be better served by canceling the contract.
Missing here is the why. Obviously The Department of Parks & Recreation and the Department of General Services, with some role by the design company?, axed the second story plan. Perhaps there was a good reason, perhaps not, but it’s not discussed in any detail. What are the “host of reasons why the original vision could not be realized”? None are mentioned, except “the cost of LEED/net zero certification as a significant constraint.” Could we have that in plain English?
Unless I’m mistaken, just because something has been budgeted, doesn’t mean money has been appropriated, correct? Regardless, the city is facing as much as a $1 billion budget shortfall from Congress that will make any spending plans or community “visions” problematic.
This is a great site for a public pool / rec center on the ground floor (and perhaps basement) with several stories of independent senior living on top of it. Sadly it seems DGS has no creativity or vision.
I get that things are more complicated/expensive, but this feelsbkike a huge missed opportunity. A second floor of some size (it doesn’t even have to be the full footprint) with just open space would provide more opportunity for the city to get usage out of it, exercize classes, meeting space, etc. It doesn’t have to be assigned fixed use space. More usage equals better cost per use. And it is likely this is the only opportunity to do this time and cost efficiently. I suspect in a few years looking back, everyone is going to be thinking the result was a short sighted mistake.
The architect made it clear that to build a two-story facility that was promised, they would have to depress the pool down a story below grade, due to the height and lost footprint restrictions.
They will need about $50 million to do that. In this fiscal environment that may be a too much of a stretch.