ANC6B Pressures DPR/DGS on Rumsey Design

ANC6B Pressures DPR/DGS on Rumsey Design

by Larry Janezich

Posted April 12, 2025

On Friday, ANC6B followed through on the commission’s unanimous vote last Tuesday to send a letter to the Directors of the DC Department of General Services (DGS) and the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), requesting a restart on the design of the Rumsey project. 

The tone of the letter was more diplomatic than a letter from Eastern Market Main Street which characterized the designs put forward by DPR/DGS as “a disappointing lack of imagination and or understanding of the rare opportunity this redevelopment project offers the city.”  See here:  https://bit.ly/43A2b4Q

Here’s the full text of the ANC’s email:   

April 11, 2025

Thennie Freeman, Director, DPR;

Delano Hunter, Director, DGS

Ward 6 Councilman, Charles Allen,

VIA EMAIL:thennie.freeman@dc.gov; delano.hunter@dc.gov; callen@dccouncil.gov

Re: Requesting a Restart for Rumsey Aquatic Center Rebuilding

This letter requests a restart in planning for the Rumsey Aquatic Center and explains

why a restart is necessary.

Most are familiar with the Sesame Street jingle: “One of these things is not like the others.” It is not hard to determine which proposal for the Rumsey Aquatic Center is different than the community-based proposals that preceded it.  The one that is different is the one just introduced – without community consultation – on March 12.  Rather than reflecting the RFP that was the  basis for the generous design/build award, the current proposal goes its own direction and seeks to shoehorn a few small auxiliary rooms into the current, single story, pool space.

The difference between the RFP and the proposed project is as great as the difference between Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch: The RFP declares: “In addition to new and upgraded aquatic features, the project will aim to deliver community-based program spaces.”  Implausibly, the current proposal does not propose to provide even the core items stipulated in the RFP:

  • senior center with tech lounge and other amenities;
  • large multipurpose/recreation room;
  • small to medium multipurpose/recreation rooms (note the plural).

At the March community meeting residents were presented with three “options”, none of which included the second floor which has been anticipated by the community, and which will be required to meet the specifications of the RFP.  Not until the Q and A was the issue of a second floor addressed and then only because several residents specifically asked about its surprising omission from the plan.

Capitol Hill residents hold a variety of expectations for pool use.  However, there is universal understanding that the rebuild of Rumsey is a once in a lifetime opportunity to add needed space resources for our built-up neighborhood that are unlikely to arise elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Edward Ryder, Chair of ANC 6B

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “ANC6B Pressures DPR/DGS on Rumsey Design

  1. Daniel Buck

    The magical thinking continues.  The letter does not substantively deal with the DGS and DPR reasons for rejecting the proposal. 
    By the way, back in 2022 Hilary Russell wrote an excellent  two-part essay for Capitol Hill Corner on the 1960s controversy over the original Rumsey Aquatic Center project, a contretemps that makes the current one seem mild by comparison.  Yes, race.  Google:  Hilary Russell + Rumsey
    Also, Russell explain why the Rumsey building looks vaguely — and annoyingly — brutalist.  Architect Gordon Bunshaft was of the brutalist school.  
    Speaking of which, if you want to test your eyes, the National Building Museum exhibition “Capital Brutalism explores the history, current state, and future of seven polarizing buildings and the WMATA Metro system in Washington, D.C.”  Enjoy or be annoyed, your choice. 

  2. muskellunge

    At the March meeting, I got the impression the architects were much more interested in the exterior than a second floor. It was clear that a significant part of the budget was reserved for a cool-looking facade.
    i understand that looks count, but I would rather have the fully functional pool. Surely there was to dress up a simple concrete block building, akin to how the new townhouses on the hill blend in, while not being built with bricks.