This legislation seeks to provide greater flexibility in meeting office needs by insisting that the General Services Administration (GSA) consider the use of what is worthy in our past, preserving it, and enhancing it, rather than to raze it or to ignore it in favor of needless new construction.

The purchase of buildings of historic, architectural, or cultural significance and their transformation into new office space will save energy. The design of older buildings is generally less extravagant in the use of energy than modern glass designs. A renovation approach would eliminate the consumption of the energy needed to tear down and replace the older building. The General Service Administration testified that it is usually cheaper to refurbish than to replace. Renovation is more labor-intensive per dollar invested than new construction. And it is work that generally can be accomplished far more expeditiously than demolition and replacement. Possibly most significant, renovation projects would enhance some of the character of our national past, while fostering urban continuity.

In response to a question during the hearing, the witness for GSA stated:

If enacted, S. 865 would promote a more efficient use of our natural resources because the existing components, such as the steel and masonry materials, would be utilized to the greatest extent practicable. This, of course, would be in contrast with new construction which would involve the manufacture of new materials on the one hand, and eventual destruction of many of them in the older buildings on the other. The alteration project provides more jobs, per dollar cost, but normally varies from 112 to 2 times in favor of alteration type work.

The American Institute of Architects testified that adaptive use can be undertaken, in many cases, at "one-third to one-half the cost of a new building providing comparable facilities."

A complementary need is to create Federal buildings that are more inviting and accessible to the public. As the Nation utilizes its past in this Bicentennial era, it must also seek to add vitality to existing and future Federal offices. This will benefit employees and visitors alike. Federal employees often are found working within an architectural island. There is no place to eat, except in a building cafeteria. There is no place to shop, except possibly at a cigar stand. And the general public-the people who paid for the building-have every reason to shun the building, with its foreboding walls, except when forced there to do business with the Federal Government. A recent report to the National Endowment for the Arts stated the basic problem:

The very term "public building" has become a contradiction: no one in his right mind now goes into a public building except on business.

This legislation, by allowing the rental of space for shops and restaurants on the major pedestrian access levels of Federal buildings, should encourage public visits to these buildings, serve the employees of the building and those who must visit them on business, and provide greater pedestrian traffic for greater public safety. This will enhance

S.R. 349

the social, cultural, and economic environment in and near Federal office buildings.

The opening of our Federal buildings by encouraging public use is a desirable goal. This legislation grants the General Service Administration the authority to lease space in Federal oflice buildings for "commercial, cultural, educational, or recreational" uses.

Broadened usage could also provide a substantial economy to the taxpayers. The most valuable space in most office buildings is the space on the access level. Instead of devoting this prime space to rows and rows of desks and files, the bill would make it available at appropriate commercial rates.

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds conducted a hearing on S. 865 on May 19, 1975. Testimony was heard from individuals representing the General Services Administration, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the American Institute of Architects, and a panel of architects. Every witness urged enactment of this legislation.

PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION

The reported bill broadens the options available to the Federal Government in meeting its need for office space, and, at the same stroke, to make Federal office buildings more inviting to the public.

It is legislation that will enhance the environment of our cities while. saving money. It is legislation that will conserve energy and natural resources while producing new jobs.

One of the most effective roles the Federal Government can play in our cities is that of catalyst. What better way exists to rejuvenate an area than to convert what is old and usable into something new and vital?

The bill directs that the General Services Administration notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation whenever GSA identifies a need for additional public office space in a particular city. The Council, through its State historical preservation officers and in cooperation with other groups such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, will then survey the metropolitan area for structures that have character and could be acquired for refurbishing. It is anticipated that this inventory can be achieved in 60 days.

This must not be an effort to select one or two isolated historic buildings for renovation. The General Services Administration can find opportunities for renovation in many older, rundown office buildings. warehouses. railway stations, and theaters. The purpose would not be to preserve the interior as originally constructed, but to convert the interior into modern offices, savings as much of the basic structure as proves to be wise.

The General Services Administration should work closely with the Advisory Council, the National Trust, and architecture groups in selecting the criteria for the types of structures to be canvassed. Once

S.R. 349

the Advisory Council completes its canvas, it would be expected to file its recommendations with GSA. That Council might identify one building clearly meeting the Federal need. It may identify two or three structures that, in combination, fulfill the Federal space needs. Or it might recommend one or two buildings for conversion, recognizing that Federal construction of a new building was necessary for the balance of the needed space. In a few cases it might find no buildings that are suitable in that particular city.

GSA would then evaluate the Council's proposal within the context of engineering and cost, weighing the advantages against the disadvantages. When GSA agrees with the Advisory Council, or possibly identifies for recycling another building of similar character, this fact will become known and discussed in the prospectus. Should it reject the Council recommendation in whole or in part, GSA must discuss, in the resulting prospectus, the details of its rejection.

"Recycling" is not intended as a way to hold up new projects. GSA must not become bogged down by lengthy cost-benefit studies, or the need to examine every building urged on it by the public. But the GSA can learn much through the drill of considering what is available from our national past before consideration of the new-construction alternative. Such work, of course, should comply with applicable local and Federal requirements in the same manner as a new construction project.

GSA's criteria are now largely based on description of items, rather than performance. That is, these criteria prescribe dimensions, the type of materials, the engineering, etc., needed to achieve safety, comfort, and convenience, without specifying dimension or materials. GSA must not use the prescriptive nature of its criteria to disqualify older buildings when these same buildings might meet the more flexible performance standards.

The Committee recently approved two buildings for the Social Security Administraton that were to be designed on a performance. rather than prescriptive, basis. GSA testified most eloquently on the need for such performance standards. GSA should take its preachments to heart and extend them to the consideration of recycling older buildings.

One source of such buildings might be older Federally owned buildings of high architectural quality that are being phased out of their present use, such as Post Offices. The use of railroad stations, such as Grand Central Station in New York City, might be reasonable.

Another opportunity exists in the conversion of the old Post Office in Washington, D.C., into modern office space, while preserving its impressive courtyard area. GSA should seek to achieve this renovation at any early date.

Much can also be achieved through the cooperative, mixed use of Federal office buildings. But cooperative use is a limited tool. It is not intended to make GSA the Nation's landlord. It will not work everywhere. It should only be tried where local governments agree. But it is an approach that, used in moderation, should have the ancillary benefit of enhancing employee morale and efficiency.

GSA also is given the flexibility to lease space or to cooperate in the use of space adjacent to any Federal office building for beneficial pur

S.R. 349

poses, such as for outdoor cafe or similar uses, when GSA has control of such space.

Rentals are allowed on the "major pedestrian access level." This phase is used because of the possible confusion over a term such as "ground floor." There may be instances when pedestrians obtain entrance to a building on two or more levels. In those cases, rental space on both levels may be appropriate. In such cases, of course, GSA must seek total rental space inside the building equivalent to the square footage available on any single floor.

Lease facilities, in many cases, cannot be expected to survive on the patronage of Federal employees. Provisions must be made for access by the public, which may dictate certain architectural considerations, such as allowing shops to be conspicuous so that they can attract customers from the street.

Tenants should be sought or encouraged so as to promote an attractive and interesting mix of commercial and other activities serving the community and not to maximize the revenue from rentals. Rentals should not be uniform, based on the highest economic use for the space. but should reflect the intended use of the space by the lessee and what rent such activities pay elsewhere in the community.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 2 of the bill is a general directive to the Administrator of the General Service Administration to acquire space for Federal offices in buildings of historic, architectural, or cultural significance, unless use of such space would not prove feasible and prudent compared with available alternatives. This directive, and one allowing mixed public-private use of Federal buildings, are intended to stimulate public use during and outside of regular Federal working hours. In making these decisions, the General Service Administration is directed to consult with the Governors, mayors, and other community leaders.

Section 3 of the bill adds two new paragraphs to the Public Buildings Act of 1959. One paragraph requires that the General Services Administration. in developing a prospectus for Federal office space. request the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to identify existing buildings in the community that are of architectural, cultural. or historic interest and suitable for purchase to convert into Federal office space. The section requires that the General Services Administration, when submitting future buildings prospectuses in which it recommends new construction, explain the economic or other reasons why it is not acquiring existing space for renovation.

Section 4 amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to allow cooperative, or mixed, use of public buildings. This section allows the General Services Administration to lease space along the major pedestrian access level of any public building to persons or firms engaged in commercial, cultural, education, or recreational activities at a rate that is equivalent to the prevailing local commercial rate for space devoted to a similar purpose. While the leases can be made without competitive bid, they must be made to protect the public interest.

S.R. 349

Any income from such leases is subject to in-lieu-of-tax payments by the Federal Government to the local government.

The General Services Administration is also required to give priority in the assigning of any space on the major pedestrian access level that is not leased out to those Federal activities requiring regular contact with members of the public. This should include Government Printing Office bookstores and information offices of Federal agencies. Section 5 provides a number of redefinitions, including one for "commercial activities," which is defined to include restaurants, food stores, craft stores, dry goods stores, financial institutions, and display facilities. The definition for "recreational activities" includes day-care centers. This should be construed to include all types of child care facilities which could be appropriately used by workers in the building and families from the community. The care of children in such facilities shall meet applicable state and local standards and licensing requirements or, in the absence of such standards and requirements. the Federal standards for child care as established by the Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare.

ROLLCALL VOTES

Section 133 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and the rules of the Committee on Public Works require that any rollcall votes be announced in this report. During the committee's consideration of this bill, no rollcall votes were taken, and the bill was ordered reported by voice vote.

COST OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 252 (a) (1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requires publication in this report of the Committee's estimate of the cost of reported legislation, together with estimates prepared by any Federal agency. No costs will be involved beyond those normally attributable to routine Public Building construction projects, on a case basis to be determined by the Administrator, in accordance with the appropriate provisions of Public Law 92–313.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In the opinion of the Committee it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate in order to expedite the business of the Senate.