Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Campus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sees two concepts to repurpose city-owned chapel, plans site visit
Summary
Architects presented two concepts for Washington City’s civic campus and the city‑owned meeting house: one that converts the chapel into an event/council space with a parking garage, and another that places a new city hall near Main Street while preserving the chapel. Council scheduled a site visit for further review.
Architect Jason Brightite described two conceptual approaches the downtown committee has developed for the city‑owned meeting house (the historic chapel) and the surrounding civic campus, and council members debated preservation, parking and cost tradeoffs.
Brightite presented “Option 1,” which he described as an event‑center approach that would retain the chapel’s historic interior for public gatherings and move a larger council chamber into that space while converting surrounding additions into meeting rooms, a catering kitchen and support spaces. That concept pairs a three‑story, above‑grade parking garage set behind a two‑story administration façade on Main Street; Brightite said the garage concept would yield roughly 275 stalls and could be configured with separate entries for public parking, a secure city fleet area and a police‑access bay. “The existing chapel itself … is actually quite a nice space,” Brightite said while walking the council through the layouts.
Option 2 keeps the chapel and stonework but proposes a new city‑hall building facing Main Street (concept massing presented at about 33,000 square feet in the renderings shown). Under that scheme the parking structure is shifted behind and the new hall would consolidate many city functions to relieve pressure on existing offices. Brightite emphasized that the two concepts can be phased and that the structural condition of the historic chapel is generally sound even though many mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems are near the end of their useful life.
Council members raised three recurring concerns: (1) preserving the most historic portions (the chapel, bell and monument), (2) avoiding spending only for short‑term fixes, and (3) keeping project costs and phasing manageable. Council discussion touched on siting, height limits (the schemes were designed to comply with a roughly 35‑foot residential height limit), cost per parking stall, and the possibility of designing a garage to allow future vertical expansion. One council member suggested a hybrid between the two concepts that would retain some parking up north and create a courtyard or corridor that better connects city functions and Veterans Park.
No formal decision was made; the council directed staff and the downtown committee to refine materials, phasing and cost estimates and to meet on site. The council scheduled a tour of the chapel and meeting house so members and the public can view spaces in person and offer further input.
