PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE AGENCY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING JANUARY 1946-JULY 1963

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 213
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 6, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 1, 1973
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Secret
I
CIA Internal Use Only
Access Controlled by
CIA Historical Staf
PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE AGENCY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
JANUARY 1946 - JULY 1963
VOLUME I TEXT
Secret
DCI-6
Copy 3 of 4
PERMANENT HISTORICAL DOCUMENT
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R600N'10?0 T 1Al10 y
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
WARNING
This document contains information affecting the national
defense of the United States, within the meaning of Title
18, sections 793 and 794, of the US Code, as amended.
Its transmission or revelation of its contents to or re-
ceipt by an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
E2 IMPDET
Classified by
WARNING NOTICE
SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE SOURCES
AND METHODS INVOLVED
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1M-j lEi-'VP93-00939R000109010001-5
CIA Internal Use Only
Access Controlled by CIA Historical Staff
pCI-6
PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
AGENCY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
JANUARY 1946 - JULY 1963
VOLUME I TEXT
by
June 1973;
HISTORICAL STAFF
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Approved For Release 2001/DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1
C1RF13hlIJP93-00939 R000100010001-5
A Personal Note from Colonel Lawrence K. White
I've read the Building History and found it
most interesting and well done. For personal reasons
I've suggested one minor change. There is plenty
left to illustrate, or even dramatize, the internal
struggles. I have no objection to these being used
and I assume others involved wouldn't either. After
all, intelligent and strong minded men do have dif-
ferences of opinion. In fact, as I read the history
and relived some of those experiences it seemed to.
me that its greatest value might.be to illustrate.
to anyone contemplating such a project just how
complicated it is to handle all of the myriad of
detail over and above what you expect Architects,
Engineers, and Contractors to do for you. The
pressures from within the Agency, within the Exec-
utive Branch, from the Congress -- individuals as
well as the body itself -- the various planning
Councils and Commissions, State and local bodies,
Civic Organizations, business, and just plain citizens
etc. etc. are tremendous. I would like to think that
dealing with all of them fully, fairly, and frankly --
and of course forcefully -- accounts for.our completing
this building. .
I think your history.tells the story. Thanks
for allowin -me to-read it and.my congratulations.to
LJCW
7 June 1973
Approved For Release-2001/18W,iRIErDP93-00939RO00100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1 M R1 ' bP93-00939R000100010001-5
Foreword
The effort to provide CIA with a Headquarters
Building -- acquisition, planning, construction, and
occupancy -- stretches over a period of about fifteen
years (1947-62), during which Agency components in the
Washington area were stuffed, crammed, or otherwise
deployed in a variety of structures, few of which
became "home." Initial responsibility for preparing
this segment of the Agency's history fell to the Real
Estate and Construction Division (RECD) of the Office
of Logistics, principally because it was the component
most closely concerned with the problem before the
formation of the Building Planning Staff (BPS) -- to
which, as noted in the history, RECD contributed
several key personnel.
Upon completion of the occupancy of the Langley
Headquarters in 1962, many of the BPS personnel re-
turned to RECD; and as this history was begun (October
25X1
1970), they were available to provide guidance, and
memories to the original author,
himself formerly a member of the BPS. Because
25X1
was scheduled for a PCS almost simultaneously
Approved For Release 2001/11g I rfIDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/11-'FDP93-00939R000100010001-5
with his designation as an historian, he was able to
complete only a first draft of the report; and, because
of the little time available to him, many basic sources
were not fully exploited.
Major additions. to this first draft were recom-
mended by the Curator of the Historical Intelligence
Collection (HICI, Walter Pforzheimer, who at the time
of the activities. described was CIA's Legislative
Counsel and therefore deeply involved in the negotia-
tions for the new site. Consequently he has been
quoted extensively throughout this history. In ad-
dition to his own in-depth review of the draft,
Pforzheimer also opened the files of the HIC to
a senior support officer awaiting
reassignment, who undertook the extensive research
necessary to fill many of the gaps left by the first
draft.
The Curator of HIC also provided guidance to
other source materials that proved most useful.
f course, took advantage of the HIC
materials,and, in addition, put his own broad know-
ledge of the Support Directorate to use to recover
other pertinent data.
Approved For Release 2001/18MITDP93-009398000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1R1ETDP93-009398000100010001-5
Among the numerous figures which appear in this
history, special mention should be made of the excellent
photos used from the collection of
Photos 22-25, 27, 29-32, and .37-38 -- some of which were
displayed at Headquarters. in honor of the Agency's
25th anniversary -- are from files.
In conjunction with the sources noted above, the
files and Diary Notes of Colonel Lawrence K. White,
Executive Director-Comptroller (1965-72) -- and Deputy
Director for Support during the Headquarters Building
construction period -- proved invaluable. These
Diary Notes were kept almost daily from 1 January
1952, when he became Assistant Deputy Director for
Administration .(ADDA), until his retirement in 1972.
The Diary Notes covering 1952 through 1964, which
were examined in detail for purposes of this history
by the Support Services Historical'Officer (SSHO),
make clear the major role played by Colonel White.
He was instrumental in seeking policy approval during
both the planning and the. construction phases of the
story, and he,was directly involved in meetings with
the President, Congressmen, state and local officials,
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2001/1S MP
 Approved For Release 2001/1$1 R$-'jtDP93-00939R000100010001-5
business and industrial leaders, private citizens, and
civic organizations in attempting to resolve the
multitudinous problems of the time.
Because the Diary Notes give much of. the flavor
of the day-to-day personal involvement of the Agency's
principal manager for activities related to the planning
and construction of the Headquarters Building, they
have been cited verbatim,. paraphrased, and otherwise
heavily relied on.in this history.
Approved For Release 2001/1M .P
0P93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1 S C& bP93-00939R000100010001-5
Page
Chapter I. The Development of Building
Planning . . . . . . . . ... . . .
1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Background . Period,. 1948-1951, . . . . . .
5
The Decision to Began, 1951-1953 . . . . .
11
Summary and Conclusions, 1946-1953 .
37
Chapter II. The Concept Formalized . . . . .
39
The Expansion of the Planning Group,
1953-1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
Critical Coordination Period, 1955-1956 . .
50
The Building Planning Staff, 1955-1957
95
Selection of the Architect and Construction
Agent, 1955-1956 . . . . . . . . . .
101
Chapter III. The Design and Construction
Stage . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .
126
The Design of the Superstructure,,.
1956-1958 . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .
127
The Building Planning Staff, 1957-1960
140-
Approved For Release 2001 /'8]1c ' DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1 Sp ply-'IDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Page
The Construction Period, 1957-1963 . . . . . 149
The Laying of the Cornerstone,
3 November 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
The Occupancy of the Building, 1960-1962 . . 179
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . .'199
Appendixes
A. Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
B. Source References 209
C. Congressional References . . . . . . . 230
D. Staff Study . 237
E. Buildings Occupied by CIA as of
26 January 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
F. Outline Plan for the Development of the
Proposed CIA Headquarters Project . . . 243
G. Testimony of Admiral Phillips, USN (Ret.) . 245
H. Letter, Allen Dulles to George H. Mahon,
Chairman, Defense Subcommittee,
House Committee on Appropriations;
letter, Rowland Hughes, Director,
Bureau of the Budget to Allen Dulles;
statement of Allen Dulles in connection
with. the request for an appropriation
to construct a headquarters installs-
tion-for the Central Intelligenpe
Agency 254
Approved For Release 2001/$C[RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/'9~1C DP93-00939R000100010001-5
Page
I. CIA Organizational Arrangement for the
Development of "Definitive" Plans
for a Permanent Headquarters Build-
ing, 4 October 1955 . . . . . . . . . .
270
J. Memo, Lyman B. Kirkpatrick for Deputy
Director, Support, 4 February 1957 . .
271
K. Sites and Site Acquisition Data 1957-69 .
275
L. Professional Achievement Awards . . . . .
277
M. History of the CIA Cornerstone Box . . . .
280
Tab A.. Contents of Cornerstone Box . .
283
Tab B. Method of Construction
of Metal Boxes Used to Contain
These Articles . . . . . . . . . . .
285
.N. Invitation to Cornerstone-Laying Ceremony. 287
0. Description of the Headquarters Building,
February 1962 . . . ... . . . . . . . . 288
P. Photographs . . . 295
Approved For Release 2001/SFRT,F~JDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18cLY-rDP93-00939R000100010001-5
PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
AGENCY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
JANUARY 1946 - JULY 1963
Chapter I
The Development.of Building Planning
Introduction
A problem of prime importance throughout the
early years of the Agency was the acquisition of suitable
space to house its headquarters.organization.* The
facilities inherited from the Office of Strategic
Services (OSS) and those in use during the brief
period of the interim Strategic Services Unit (SSU)
of the War Department and the Central Intelligence
Group (CIG) were at best temporary and were not
adaptable to the growing requirements of CIA.
In March 1947 the 25X1
second-ranking CIG administrative official, and 25X1
CIG?s Deputy Executive for Personnel and
For a chronology, see Appendix A.
Approved For Release 2001/$U8'RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1gf'fDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Administration, collaborated in preparing the first
of many letters from the Director of Central Intelli-
gence (DCI), Lieutenant General Hoyt S. Vandenberg,
to the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Services
(PBS) of the Federal Works Agency (FWA), W. E. Reynolds,
requesting " ... that CIG'be assigned a single perma-
nent, fire-proof building having a minimum capacity
of ' 1/* This urgent require-
ment for single-occupancy space in the metropolitan
area of Washington was supported by the statement that
CIG presently was assigned ten buildings.**
Two of the buildings ("M" and "Q") are
of temporary construction ... housing the
most secret phases of the centralized
day-to-day operations of the Group
access to these buildings by simple
housebreaking methods are, inherent in
their construction ... both buildings
constitute an ever-present fire hazard
... loss of the documents and/or infor-
mation ... would be a severe blow to
national security. 2/
To this plea the commissioner of PBS replied,
"at the moment the only action I can take regarding
the subject matter ... is-to thank you for it and to
* For serially numbered"source references, see
Appendix B.
** Appendix P, Figures 1 through 9, show some buildings
occupied by CIG/CIA prior to the move to Headquarters
Building.
Approved For Release 2001/ 'RC"DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1g/tftIt-PDP93-00939R000100010001-5
note your future needs ... " He then explained:
Space ... in the area is expected to
remain tense during the remainder of
the current fiscal year and perhaps
well into the succeeding period. Pre-
vailing country wide conditions in the
construction industry have prevented
our embarking upon a program of con-
struction-... which would go a long way
toward relieving the existing shortage.
3/
Until new construction could be completed, apparently
there was no alternative to the continued and increased
occupancy of the temporary buildings that were built
during World War I and World War II; and the CIG
would have to make do.*
Inasmuch as a copy of the DCI's letter also was
sent to the Bureau of the Budget (BOB), F. J. Lawton,
Acting Assistant Director, replied for that organiza-
tion. Lawton reported that there appeared to be no
hope during fiscal year.1948 for the assignment of
a permanent fire-proof building for the exclusive
use of the CIG; and, as to removing the secret activ-
ities of the organization to fire-proof space during
* By mid 1948, CIG occupied a total of net 25X1
square feet.' 4/
Approved For Release 2001/$ RDP93-009.39R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/l *tfDP93-00939R000100010001-5
the course of fiscal year 1949, no commitment could
be made. The BOB was relatively certain that there
would be little probability of finding square
feet of properly secure space but stated that the
request would be kept in mind when a reviewp-t of the
War and Navy Department space requirements was under-
taken. It should be noted that the key words were:
the renewal of the federal building program
in the metropolitan area would present an
opportunity for a wholly adequate solution
to-the CIG space problem. I ... wish to
assure you that neither the PBS nor the
BOB'will overlook the importance or the
urgency of your needs.5/
In July 1947 another request for a solution to
CIG's serious space problem was directed to Major
General Philip B. Fleming, USA, Administrator of the
Federal Works Agency (FWA), by.Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter,
Rear Admiral, USN, after his appointment as DCI suc-
ceeding Vandenberg.* The new DCI again emphasized
the paramount importance of physical security for the
many scattered locations, noting that the temporary
construction'and accessibility at ground level seriously
* Hillenkoetter was.sworn in as DCI on 1 May 1947?.
Approved For Release 2001/SIC
MDP93-009398000100010001-5
25X1
 Approved For Release 2001/15EVCpBpDP93-00939R000100010001-5
complicated the handling and processing of highly
classified documents. The DCI closed his letter with
"I hope that you can appreciate the urgency of our
problem and give it early and favorable consideration."
In his reply of 23 July Fleming assured Hillenkoetter
that the CIG's needs would be thoroughly studied by
the PBS for possible future action but added that
with the imminence of the recentralization of a
number of Government agencies, which had recently
been approved by Congress, it was quite evident that
all space would remain at a premium because Congress
had not approved any new construction in the Wash-
ington area to alleviate the existing space needs. 7/
Background Period, 1948-1951
The DCI next approached Fleming on 16 January
1948; he had been advised by the PBS that the FWA was
then considering a long-range plan for the construction
of additional Government-owned buildings for various
new federal activities. The DCI felt that his request
would be strengthened by the fact that CIA had now
been made a permanent Federal Government Agency by
the 80th Congress.
Approved For Release 2001/' DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18EC.jEETDP93-00939R000100010001-5
I would like to discuss ... the complete
housing requirements ... [and] possible
future site locations ... in order that
steps may be taken now to prepare the
necessary ... drawings.and specifications
in accordance with our requirements. I
would appreciate hearing from you ... [or]
your representatives as to the feasibility
of proceeding with such a plan. 8/
Again the reply was not encouraging. On 2 February
19487leming said that "As far as I have been able to
weigh-Congressional opinion, construction funds will
not be made available for any buildings except those
in an emergency category." It appeared that Congress
might give authority for a very limited program of
construction that would involve only funds for the
purchase of sites and the design of federal buildings
at that time. FWA's first priority was .the new General
Accounting Office (GAO) building which had been ini-
tially authorized before World War II -- the GAO
space situation was considered by PBS to be critical but new Congressional authorization was required.
Another project of high priority was the extension
of the State Department Building on,Government-owned
land, for which the design development drawings were
partially complete. Fleming questioned whether any-
thing could, be gained at that time by initiating a
Approved For Release 2001 /S J9 J DP93-009398000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/ISLDC- DP93-00939R000100010001-5
new project before the BOB for a separate building
for CIA; the discussion of a possible future site
and the housing requirements for the Agency could be
started, however, with the Public Buildings Admini-
stration (PBA). 9/
A meeting was set for 2 March 1948 in the office
of Commissioner Reynolds of the PBS. The Agency was
represented by the DDCI, Brigadier General Edwin K.
Wright; the Executive for Administration and Manage-
ment, and the Chief of the Services
Branch, 10/ Reynolds suggested
that CIA survey four sites owned by the US Government
in the Suitland area of Maryland. A brief tour of the
area on 18 March 1948, as directed by the DDCI, was
completed by the Acting
Services Officer, and Although-the sites
appeared to be generally adequate for new construction
to provide for persons, warehousing, and all
special equipment, they were not satisfactory from
the point of view of the residence of 70 percent of
the civilian employees of the Agency. was 25X1
concerned about the.-possible loss of a considerable
Approved For Release 2001/$DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18/E -s]El1-cDP93-00939R000100010001-5
number of staff personnel because of transportation
and traffic problems..11/ Reynolds further suggested
that CIA re-study its overall projected space require-
ments and present them to the PBS for the preparation
of an estimate-of construction costs and for the
proposed. legislation appropriating the funds PBS would
need to finance the cost of preliminary plans and
outline specifications.
A review and survey of requirements in April
1948 showed that the Agency occupied- net:;
square feet of space at locations and that the
estimated requirement was for 'a single building of
net square feet -- exclusive of the areas
required for food service -- and an auditorium to
accommodate 1,000 persons. The projected requirement
.was based on reasonable expansion of activities in
accordance with the CIA budget as approved by the
BOB. This information was forwarded to FWA on 29
April 1948 with the understanding that site recom-
mendations would be the subject of a separate letter
at.a later date. The letter also stated:
I wish to acknowledge with apprecia-
tion the.invaluable assistance given by
Approved For Release 2001/SMIkWDP93-00939R000100010001-5
25X1
25)
 25X1A Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18/ .1I-PDP93-00939R000100010001-5
The.political climate and the economic conditions
of the country during 1949-50 were not considered to
be favorable for a DCI approach to the BOB regarding
the building planning and funding authorization re-
quired from the Congress. The US national, security
and international expenditures for fiscal year 1950
were reduced by $1.3 billion., and military manpower
had been reduced from 1.5 million to 1.4 million for
fiscal year 1949. 18/
In the early part of 1950 the Agency explored
the possibility of adding. two wings to temporary
buildings "M" and "Q" in order to relieve the critical
space problems confronting the personnel of the col-
lection and dissemination office. In a letter of
31 March 1950 Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary of the
Interior,-repliedtt_to Jess Larson, Administrator of
the General Services Administration (GSA), conveying
the thought that the use of-federal park lands " ...
Approved For Release 2001/'O rfDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18.et.t-rDP93-00939R000100010001-5
f
might be considered a dereliction of duty ... regrets
to Admiral Hillenkoetter." This information was
.relayed in an 18 April 1950 covering letter to the
DCI from GSA. 19/ .
On, then Acting
CIA Executive Director, called for a report from
each Agency Assistant Director and Staff Chief indi-
cating "the ultimate anticipated space requirement
for the activities under your jurisdiction." This
report.assumed office occupancy on the basis of 100
square feet per person and special-use space in
accordance with each activity. 20/,,.A working chart
developed from these estimated component needs called
estimates would not be accurate but would provide a
planning base for the DCI's efforts to obtain one or
several permanent buildings to centralize CIA activ-
ities. 22/
The Decision to Begin,, 1951-1953
When.General Walter Bedell Smith took the oath
as DCI on'7 October 1950,.a new era began for CIA.
25X1
- 11 -
Approved For Release 2001/4$RRDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1gfEC.L4-iDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Smith and his deputy, William H. Jackson, took steps
at once to strengthen the. organization of the Agency.
In December they authorized' two new Deputy Directors one for Administration and one for Operations -- to
improve control over the numerous Assistant Directors,
who had previously reported directly to the DCI. Murray
McConnel was named the,first Deputy Director for Ad-
ministration (DDA), eliminating the position of CIA
Executive. was brought aboard in
November as Special.Consultant, slated to.head the
Directorate for Operations. Objections were raised
to'the.somewhat ingenuous title of Director of Opera-
tions, so on 2 January 1951 Dulles was appointed Deputy
Director. for Plans (DDP). 23/
The new management team -- the DCI, his deputy,
Jackson, Walter R. Wolf, who succeeded McConnel as
DDA on 1 April 1951; and the Legislative Counsel,
then Walter L. Pforzheimer*, -- acted vigorously
.from the spring to the fall of 1951 to try to obtain
Congressional authorization and funding for a CIA
* Walter Pforzheimer currently (1973) serves as
Curator of the Historical Intelligence Collection.
12 -
Approved For Release 2001/MRWDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18EVGj~tpDP93-00939R000100010001-5
headquarters building. 24/ The authorization was sub-
mitted in the Military and Naval
Construction bill (H.R. 4914*) in the amount of $38
million and was approved by the Congress on 28 September
1951 (Sec. 401, P.L. 82-155).** It was recognized
that it would . beimpossible to conceal-'the construction
of a new CIA building for very long, but it was deter-
mined to keep the project secret. for as long as possible.
There were three major reasons for this: to avoid
public reaction to a CIA move from the center of
Washington, which the public might feel was based on
special knowledge that an attack was expected in the
near future; to avoid a rise in land prices in the
area of a:..new building for as long as possible; and
to allow the Agency to complete plans and perhaps
some construction with maximum security regarding the
location of communications rooms, special vaults,
and other special features. 25/ Therefore the
* H.R. 4914 was originally introduced as H.R. 4524
on 20 June 1951. On 24 July, H.R. 4914 was drawn up
by the House Armed Services Committee-as a clean
version of the.original.
** For complete Congressional References, see Appen-
dix C.
Approved For Release 2001'/cfDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001 /1 M 1IB---DP93-00939R000100010001-5
authorizing legislation contained no overt reference
to a CIA building and no CIA witnesses testified
before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
The two chairmen, Congressman Vinson and Senator
Russell, were briefed privately by General Smith,
Wolf, and Pforzheimer; and the chairmen took the
legislation through their committees. The reports of
the Senate and House Armed Services Committee merely
note that all projects contained in Section 401 are
classified.. According to Pforzheimer the final
decision to go forward with the request for an ap-
propriation was made so late in the budget year that
the Agency worked hastily to prepare for Congressional
hearings. Wolf, the DDA, arranged for an outside
architectural firm, Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, to
provide an artist's'rendering of the building for use
in the hearings. At least one criticism was made of
the artist's concepts; Pforzheimer has noted that
It was Allen Dulles who stated that'he
could not work in an office without a
window.' At that point, General Smith
drew a small window into the otherwise
windowless building in the sketch before
him and said to Mr. Dulles, "That's your
office." It is not only my memory but
also Mr. Houston's that this is the
correct version. In subsequent testimony,
Mr. Dulles also referred to it. 26/
Approved For Release 2001/MRC DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/181Ef3lE1,crDP93-009398000100010001-5
The proposal called for construction of a
building wi.th.a large base, underground parking,
four multi-story towers, and. no windows; it was to
be located on the Government-owned "Nevius Tract" --
.approximately 25 acres in the vicinity of the Iwo
Jima statue in Arlington County, Virginia, and the
adjacent hill near the Arlington National Cemetery.
As late as 29 August 1951 the DCI and Pforzheimer
conferred separately with the Chairman of the Senate
Committee, Senator Russell (D-Ga.), and with Senator
Byrd (D-Va.) regarding the'legislation authorizing
CIA to construct a building. Senator Russell stated
that
he would handle the matter personally
with his committee and.make the necessary
explanations; and'he preferred that no
CIA witness appear.. 27/*
Senator Byrd expressed concern regarding the continued
federalization of Virginia counties adjacent to the
Dictrict of Columbia because of the resultant tax
losses but agreed not to oppose the CIA request.
* This was the same position previously adopted by
Chairman Vinson of the House'Armed Services Committee.
Approved For Release 2001/11 cDP93-009398000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/15EU.ItApDP93-00939R000100010001-5
As soon as the House passed the authorizing
legislation. in August 1951 and in-accordance with
standard procedure for CIA matters, the Chief Clerk
of the House Appropriations Committee was informed
of the $38-million authorization for a CIA building
and the Agency's desire t t the committee appropriate
the funds. On 2.October, s the committee was approach-
ing hearings on funding t e section of the Military
and Naval Construction Act in which the CIA authori-
zation was included, Pforzheimer was invited by
Congressman Mahon (D-Tex.), Chairman of the Armed
Services Appropriation Subcommittee before which
the hearings were being held, to discuss the project
with him informally. The chairman was fully briefed
by Pforzheimer, who explained that for security
reasons Chairman Vinson and Senator Russell had
handled the authorizing legislation themselves with-
out any formal CIA testimony. Chairman Mahon agreed
that this would be the preferable method of handling
the matter, that he. would consider the problem, and
that he would advise. the Agency if formal testimony
.was required. Any funding would be contained in the
Second Supplemental Appropriation Bill for 1952 --
16 -
Approved For Release 2001/BMFg"DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18/EU.1 rDP93-00939R000100010001-5
then before the full committee -- which included the
military construction. funds.
To the Agency's surprise and consternation the
House Appropriations Committee eliminated funds for
the CIA building in reporting out the bill on 8
October.1951. The next day Chairman Mahon advised
Pforzheimer that the subcommittee felt that the item
had come before them. too late to be considered in
detail and had therefore rejected it. He suggested,
however, that the Agency have the item restored by
the Senate Appropriations Committee, and if that
committee approved funds for the building the matter
could be thrashed out in conference between the two
committees. If this procedure were followed, Chair-
man Mahon said he would be inclined to accept the
Senate amendment but would not commit himself prior
to a joint House-Senate.committee meeting. On the
same date, in a letter to Pforzheimer, Mahon confirmed
the denial of funds by his subcommittee. 28/
Considerable scurrying around ensued, both at
headquarters and on Capitol Hill, leafing to the
DCI's appearance before the Senate Appropriations
Committee to seek. restoration of the funds that the
Approved For Release 200181@RI]%;['RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001 /'9.B:XJ 'f DP93-00939R000100010001-5
House had disallowed. As a result of the DCI's
testimony; the committee restored the funds as re-
quested, and after Senate.passage.the bill went to
conference to iron out disputed items in the House
and Senate versions.*
A.member of the Senate Appropriations Committee
or its staff later told an interesting story that
occurred during the""mark up" of the bill. No out-
siders are present during the mark up, at which time
members of the committee determine what items to
approve, change, or disapprove. The Chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee at that time was
Senator Kenneth McKellar (D-Tenn.), who was then a
little senile and given to dozing.off during committee
meetings. He would then wake up and interpolate a
* With reference to the date of the DCI's appearance
before the Committee, Pforzheimer has noted that "I
have found no written record of the date in our files.
.Mr. Francis S. Hewitt, then as now a member of the
professional staff of the Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee, checked the committee records for me in Feb-
ruary 1971. They have no record of the date of
General Smith's appearance in Executive Session.
As was the custom at that time, no transcript of
.the testimony was made. From internal evidence,
however, Mr. Hewitt and I.have concluded that the
date of the DCI:s testimony was almost certainly
12 October.1951." 29/
Approved For Release 2001/1~RDPg3-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001 /181ptj 4 DP93-00939R000100010001-5
remark and doze off again. While the committee was
considering the CIA building, Senator Cordon (R-Ore.)
remarked that the proposed building would be a very
interesting one because it would have no windows.
Senator McKellar woke up with- a start and said "Whatl
A building without any women!" and went back to sleep
again.
On 23 October 1951 Chairman Mahon wrote Smith
that the House's original position had been sustained
in conference and that no funds for a CIA,building
were provided by the conferees. He assured the
Agency, however, of consideration at a future date. 30/
Smith replied on 26 October, stating that CIA would
resubmit the project "as soon as possible" 31/; but
this did not occur in 1951. One participant in the
negotiations with Congress has since reported that
The loss of funds to construct a CIA
building was indeed a blessing in dis-
guise. Our estimates as to space re-
quirements were woefully inadequate, as
were the cost estimates. No firm decision
had been reached as to a site. In fact,
we were ill-prepared to make even those
submissions which achieved our authori-
zation.32/
At this point in the planning stage the Agency had..an.
approved Congressional authorization of $38 million
Approved For Release 2001/RCRDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 25X1A
25X9
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/lYM.p
but no planning or construction appropriation of any
kind -- not even funds, to cover the costs of the design
or the preliminary plans and outline specifications.
Space reports as of 25 September 1951 indicated that
.the Agency occupied net square feet, with
- persons in ? buildings at more than a score
of scattered locations in the metropolitan area. 33/
Long before the act became a law, the Agency
was well aware that the authorization of $38 million
was insufficient. In a memorandum for the record
dated 9 April 1951, described a conference
with Martin, the Emergency Planner for BOB; Reynolds
of PBA; Wilfred L. Peel, Chief of CIA Administration
Services (AS); and Edward R. Saunders, the CIA Comp-
troller, in which Martin stated that the Estimates
Division of BOB wanted to incorporate in the military
budget for fiscal year 1952 funds for the construction
of a complete new CIA installation. This estimate
was required not later than 13 April 1951. The fol-
lowing is from memorandum:
Based on space for people, complete
physical security, special space for train-
ing, food, medical facilities, vaults, air
conditioning, warehouses, garage, etc. Mr.
Reynolds stated that an estimate of approx-
imately $46 million should be submitted.
Approved For Release 2001/VJRDP93-00939R000100010001-5
25X9
 Approved For Release 2001/1SMC JK=FDP93-00939R000100010001-5
This is broken down broadly as indicated
below:
Office buildings:
$40,000,000
Development of site,
. including utilities
1,500,000
Warehouse and garage
2,250,000
Access roads
1,500,000
Contingencies
750,000
Mr. Reynolds stated that the access roads
figure was flexible and would depend en-
tirely on site location. He further stated
that the figure for site development was
based on utilizing'-land now owned by the
Government. He suggested the most suitable
sites now owned ....were two tracts of
approximately 400 acres each one located
between Langley, Virginia, and the Potomac
River (now owned by the Public Roads Admin-
istration) and one at Suitland, Maryland,
(now owned by.the Public Buildings Service).
We have been requested to survey these
sites and to indicate whether or not they
are considered suitable by the Director.
Mr. Reynolds strongly advised against under-
ground construction. He stated that all re-
cent tests and information had indicated that
underground construction of the nature pro-
posed, was more dangerous in atomic attack than
above-surface areas. His proposal is an "H"
shaped building completely above-ground, the
first two wing stories to be windowless;and
blast-proof, and the wings connected by space
for food facilities to be also of blast-proof
and fire-proof construction. They have basic
plans and specifications for such a type
building which could be suitably modified to
meet our physical security needs and the
.interior laid out in a manner completely
adaptable to our requirements.
Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Reynolds pointed
out that this project should be presented
as a special project and in such a manner
that it would not become confused with the
so-called "Dispersal Plan." 34/
Approved For Release 2001/SMRDP993-00939R000.100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1M.RIETDP93-009398000100010001-5
Active Agency internal planning finally began
after a meeting with Commissioner Reynolds on 10 August
1951 when Peel directed Chief of
the Real Estate and Construction Division, to respond
to a study entitled "Adaption of Federal Office Building
to Housing Requirements of CIA." 35/ Peel had pre-
viously recjved from the Chief of the CIA Security
Office, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, information dated
30 July 1951 concerning security measures for consider-
ation with any preliminary planning for a proposed
new headquarters building.*
These studies, as well as others prepared during
the fall and winter of 1951-52, were made primarily
to determine the style and type of facility most
suitable for CIA and whether or not a typical govern-
ment building could be converted or constructed to
meet the needs of the Agency. 37/ As indicated below,
pointed out: how the preliminary design
proposals submitted by the PBA for CIA consideration
were unacceptable, even though he was convinced that
* By the end of January 1952, it had been decided,
that a Security Office representative would "participate
actively from.now on in the planning of the new build-
ing." 36/
Approved For Release 2001 /19p4,C Ja 2DP93-00939R000100010001-5
25X1
 Approved For Release 2001/,Mj. rfDP93-00939R000100010001-5
PBA/GSA would be a better design and construction
agent than any Department of Defense design and con-
struction supervisory service that might be available
to the Agency.
The proposed design is another massive
type of structure with technical dis-
advantages as the block-type originally
proposed, but to a ,greater degree, since
the new scheme envisions the elimination
of all windows. .... the H-shaped building
design would lend itself somewhat more
readily to compartmentalization ... as
the tallest and most imposing structure
within a radius of several miles, the
building would be an excellent target
for aerial attack. ... [Its] location
and architectural treatment will inevi-
tably make it a focal point for much
attention and curiosity and the possi-
bilities for future expansion are not
good. ... the scheme is not based upon
functional requirements, but representing
a grouping of elements designed to result
in an esthetically pleasing ensemble.
costs basis [sic] would be consider-
ably greater than the budgeted amount ...
since in lieu of partial mechanical
ventilation ... complete air conditioning
would be required. ... as a monumental
structure it will require more costly
exterior finish than the untreated poured
concrete envisioned for the earlier scheme.
... numerous special features required
by our components were not taken into
account in the original cost estimates.
... estimates of space requirements are
now approximately 25 percent in excess
of the amount provided in the original
authorization proposal.
Approved For Release 2001/SMR RDP93-00939R000100010001-5.
 Approved For Release 2001/18P
,U1EEcrDP93-00939R000100010001-5
strongly advised that these points be sub-
mitted for consideration by the persons responsible
for the ultimate decision on the suitability of these
PBA design schemes. 38/ The Acting Chief of RECD,
stated in a memorandum to the
Chief of Administrative Services that "the general
and technical details ... [of] plans and specifications
for the new CIA building" were high on the list of
projects of the division. 39/
In the fall of 1951 Colonel Lawrence. K. White,
then Deputy Assistant Director for Operations, was
asked to become the Assistant Deputy Director for
Administration (ADDA). After considerable soul
searching -- and no little pressure from higher
echelons, including the DCI -- Col. White accepted
the new position, effective on 2 January 1952. 40/
As he recorded at the time, "The DD/A also made me
responsible for the new building plans and asked me
to accept this as a number one priority among other
things." 41/
Approved For Release 2001/SRDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18Et. DP93-00939R000100010001--5
As chief of planning for the new building,
White began a task that was to occupy a significant
portion of his time over the next decade. The job
required a "ramrod"; and as will be apparent in sub-
sequent chapters of this history, White more than met
the challenges of the assignment. Almost immediately
he established an ad hoc committee for the new build-
ing. Chief of Administration Services,
was designated as secretary to maintain and distribute
the minutes. 42/
On 7 January 1952, just a few days after his
appointment as ADDA, White accompanied the DDA, Wolf,
on a visit to-Commissioner Reynolds of PBS to review
the building planning problem., They emphasized that
inasmuch as Congress had declined to appropriate the,
funds at its last session,
.., there was no existing structure ...
into which our departmental organization
could.fit under one roof ... and none
available at any time in the foreseeable
future.
Reynolds stated that Wolf's understanding of the
problem was entirely correct and that he did not don-
sider a written statement to be..necessary and, further,
that he would be happy to testify personally before
25 -
Approved For Release 2001/M RDP93-009398000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1YBC. pIE-'DDP93-00939R000100010001-5
any committee with which the Agency had difficulty.
The DDA related the Agency's understanding that the
only three possible sites available were the Langley
and Nevius sites in Fairfax County and Arlington,
Virginia, respectively and Suitland,Maryland.* Wolf
added that he did not believe that the DCI would be
willing to locate at either Suitland or Langley. He
said that
the plans prepared by PBS for the
Nevius Tract are attractive and accept-
able ... however, it would ... require
the entire $38 million ... to construct
a building on this site which would meet
the approval of the National Capital
Park and Planning Commission (NCPPC).
The DDA thought that the Congress might not appropriate
$38 million and that CIA might be forced to contract
,something for, say, $25 million; thus he concluded
that "we, therefore, cannot construct a building on
the Nevius Tract."
The Commissioner replied that a fourth site
could be made available on the US Soldiers' Home
* The locations of the sites which were at one time
or another considered for the Headquarters Building
are shown on map 1, inside back cover of Volume II.
- 26 -
Approved For Release 2001/1$ C LA' DP83-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1 Sf 3R TDP93-00939R000100010001-5
', 25X9
property, and the construction would not require the
architectural and esthetic fringes that would be
necessary for the Nevius location. Reynolds then
compared the Agency space problem with that of the
new General Accounting Office Building, which was
to house employees and cost $25 million. He
' stated that if CIA would reduce the number of employ-
25X9 ees who were required to be under one roof to, say,
25X9 _ rather than _ "we could come very close
to constructing an adequate building," even though
construction costs had risen approximately 17 per-
cent since the GAO contract was let.
Reynolds summarized his position.by saying that
he much preferred to see the Agency build on the Nevius
site. Wolf agreed but subsequently requested that
White, Peel, and visit the Soldiers' Home
property the following day, 8 January 1952. Reynolds
also is reported to have stated that
he thought we ought to know ... it was
the President's desire that the Govern-
ment "Dispersal Plan" was to be revived
... and NSRB has lowered its minimum
distance requirements from the previous
twenty-mile radius to a ten to twelve-
mile radius.
27 -
Approved For Release 2001/'61, ,f(LWFDP93-009398000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1 );E-'-FDP93-00939R000100010001-5
When asked by the ADDA whether in his opinion this
should influence CIA in any way in proceeding with
the new building plans, Reynolds was positive in his
belief that it should not. 43/
The ADDA thought that the Soldiers' Home site
,was "adequate, that the location was. in rolling country
with fairly large trees covering practically the
entire area." This site was 2.4 miles from the
Capitol -- 10 minutes traveling time -- compared with
.2.6 miles from the existing CIA Administration Build-
ing to the Capitol -- also 10 minutes traveling time. 44/
At its first meeting on 10 January 1952 the
ad hoc committee also was advised that four possible
sites were available: Langley, the US Soldiers' Home,
the Nevius tract, and the tract in Suitland. The
DCI had already declared the Suitland tract to be
unsatisfactory, so the committee decided to concen-
trate on Langley -- although.the DCI had indicated
that it might be too distant from the center of things
-- and the Soldiers' Home. The committee did not
think the $38 million authorized would be sufficient
for the monumental type of building required on the"
Nevius tract.-.Pforzheimer, a member of the committee,
28 -
Approved For Release 2001/9S' 8'DP93-00939R0001000'10001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18F
IUKI8pDP93-00939R000100010001-5
pointed out that the steps that the committee was
taking had been urged by him in mid-November and that
now two valuable months had been lost; speed was of
the essence if-the Agency was to secure appropriations
in the 1952 session of Congress. 45/
At the second meeting. of the ad hoc committee,
on 16 January 1952, White reported the DCI's decision
that the Langley and.Suitland sites were not to be
considered; that the Nevius tract was his objective;
and that the only alternative was the Soldiers.' Home
site. On 30 January 1952, PBS was advised of the
Agency's desire to proceed with the Nevius site and
was told that the DCI would not consider Langley
under any conditions. 46/ At this time the Agency
agreed to make not more than $5,000 available to PBS
for preliminary sketches of a"modified type block
building!' for the Nevius tract. The plans were to
include cost estimates for the structure and were to
be.completed by the end of February 1952.* 47/
* With reference to the PBS sketches, White noted:
reports that PBS has gone over the $5,000 we
guaranteed as reimbursement for plans and estimates.
for our new building. I told him we would make good
a reasonable amount in excess of $5,00.0, but wanted
to make sure that they understood that they did not
(footnote continued on following page)
Approved For Release 2001/$?8'DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/lMlCRn'-pDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Allen W. Dulles, the DDP, had been named to
succeed William H. Jackson as DDCI on 23 August 1951,
at which date Jackson became the DCI's Special Assist-
ant and Senior Consultant. 51/ In the meantime the
Chief of RECD was directed to make a realistic updated
cost estimate for construction of a building similar
to Federal Office Building No. 2 (the US Navy Annex),
at 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. He
reported that
... The Navy Annex was built in 1941 ...
on 25 acres of Park land ... at four
dollars per gross.square foot ... has
seven wings and headhouse. It could be
built in 1951 for eight dollars per
gross square foot, or $13.5 million,
based on 10,000 people at 100 square
feet per person ... partitions, lighting,
floor treatment, elevators and escalators
have a blank check." 48/ This excess amount may also
have included sketches for a building at the Soldiers'
Home tract. 49/ White's admonitory attitude toward
overexpenditures was characteristic throughout his
Agency career. About this same time, and also in
connection with the new building, amember of the
Building Committee asked for about $1,000 to prepare
briefing aids for Congress. White told the requestor
that "he should talk with the Comptroller and the
General Counsel about the legality of spending funds
in this manner and added that if it could be arranged,
I would approve of the expenditure; however, I cautioned
him not to develop a presentation so elaborate that
a Congressman might ask how much it cost', etc." 50
Approved For Release 2001/$IMRCgRDP93-009398000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/'61JIO1TDP93-00939R000100010001-5
would bring the cost to approximately
$15.8 million ... special requirements,
soundproof areas, standby power, labora-
tories, conference areas, numerous vaults,
secure telecommunication, sound and pro-
jection systems, floodlighting, security
fences, etc. ... plus 10 percent con-
sultant fees would bring the total [to]
$24.5 million for 1 million square feet
or 1.670.million gross square feet of
space.
stated that in most respects this type of
building was reasonably adaptable to the needs of the
Agency and offered a much more acceptable solution
than the three proposals previously submitted by PBS:
"the writer believes that the figure of $25 million
may be regarded as probably sufficient."* 52/
Meanwhile, in the winter of 1952, another
problem arose.. This was in the form of Congressional
hearings before the House Public Works Committee --
ignorant of any possible.CIA interest -- as to the
ultimate disposition of the Nevius tract, including
the possibility of surplus sale, return to private
ownership, or turning it over to the National Capital
Parks and Planning Commission. 53/ Subsequently,
through CIA intercession, the bill was stricken from
* Palmer, Chief Estimator of the Design and Construc-
tion Division of PBS, assisted in the research
for this cost-estimate study.
31 -
Approved For Release 2001/rDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/19i1_rJJE'f DP93-00939R000100010001-5
the House consent calendar, thus killing it for the
.remainder of the session and leaving the Agency free
to consider plans for using the tract.
Towards the end of May 1952 the Legislative
Counsel recommended that unless there was an emergency
no CIA legislation should be'submitted to the Congress
in that session. It was obvious that since Congress
was economy minded and this was a Presidential election
year -- and with Congress, anxious to adjourn for the
party conventions and campaigns -- nothing but the
most pressing legislation and appropriations would be
considered. Nevertheless the Bureau of the Budget
included a request for funds in the amount of $38
million in the draft of the Military Construction
Appropriations bill, which they forwarded to the
..Congress early in June. On about 5 June 1952 the DCI
discussed with Congressman Mahon, Chairman of the
Armed Services Appropriations Subcommittee, before
which the CIA appropriation came, the advisability
.of going forward with the appropriation request at
that time. Chairman Mahon informed Smith that in
his opinion it would be inadvisable to proceed, as it
might subject CIA to undue publicity and criticism.
Approved For Release 2001/SI B RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 25X1A Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/13ECR.BgFDP93-00939R000100010001-5
most recently (.1948-1952) been on loan from the Office
of the Supervising Architect of PBS to the office of
Lorenzo S. Winslow, Architect of the White House.*
1
By mid-summer 1952 as the Agency continued its
rapid expansion, the search for new space was intensified.
Consideration was given to a building at 7th and D
Streets N.W. in the. District, to the Munitions and Navy
buildings on Constitution Avenue, to Temporary Buildings
T and E, and to the Hurley-Wright Building, 59/ On 1
August 1952 the Acting DDA, White, submitted a staff
study to the DCI recommending that the Agency should
make an immediate attempt.to acquire the Navy Building,
with the Munitions Building as second choice.**
* was one of the principal PBS liaison
25X1A officials during the reconstruction and modernization
of the executive mansion under the administration of
President Harry S. Truman. The John MpShane Construc-
tion firm was the contractor-builder for this major
renovation project.
** For the text of the staff study, see Appendix D.
34 -
Approved For Release 2001/$RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/18B(X]RtDP93-00939R000100010001-5
.The DCI approved the recommendation on the day it was
submitted. 60/ Search for the site for the building
did not close, however, and, at the end of 1952 and the
beginning of 1953, consideration was given to the
possibility of construction on the 2430 E Street
property.* 61/
Almost one year later, however, the General
Services Administration (GSA), after.careful study,
again recommended that CIA construct a new building.
In its:--report of 24 June 1953, GSA suggested that the
site at Langley, Virginia, was the best available
for that purpose. 63/
In 1953 there was little activity on,the Congres-
sional front for a CIA building. In June, White raised
the question of whether or not it was advisable to
discuss the matter with the Chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee in order to insure committee
support with the Bureau of the Budget. 64/ on 9 June,
White, Saunders, and Pforzheimer met with Kenneth
Sprankle, chief clerk of the committee, to see whether
* It. may have been that the proposed site was on the
North side of E Street, across from the building. at
2430 E. 62/ .
Approved For Release 2001/ Sp,
R91,R0P93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001 /1&E1 ,]KI, TDP93-00939R000100010001-5
or not Chairman Taber or the full Appropriations Com-
mittee might at least give some expression of endorsement
to bringing the Agency together in one building,
particularly as funds for construction for a new
building had been eliminated from.the budget for fiscal
year 1953.. Sprankle said that such support should
come from.the.Executive Branch initially; otherwise
the Agency might be tempted to use the Congressional
endorsement to coerce the Executive Branch.
White assured Sprankle that this was not so,
as the Bureau of the Budget had agreed that CIA should
have a building. Sprankle noted that as yet the Agency
had no firm proposal for a building or for costs,.that
any such committee move would be premature, and that
the'Agency representatives should raise the question
at a later date when figures were available for the
chairman to assess costs against potential savings. 65/
By September the site selection was.still:in.
doubt, and White informed Pforzheimer that he had
discussed the matter with the DCI and DDCI on 12
September, at which time the DCI favored the present
site at 2430.E Street and the DDCI preferred Langley.
GSA.held to its position,that there was no building
Approved For Release 2001 /$I ; FZDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/1SErJ.BpDP93-00939R000100010001-5
1
I
1A
presently available that could house the whole Agency
and that they would support CIA's request in Congress. 66
No final determination was yet in sight, and none was
made in 1953.
Summary and Conclusions, 1946-1953
During the transition from CIG to CIA, and con-
tinuing through the Korean war, there was a steady
increase in the number of Agency personnel in the
headquarters area. Make-do facilities in various
structures of World War-I and World War-II vintage
were acquired and used for a host.of sensitive intel-
ligence purposes, both overt and covert.* From 1946
to 1950 various space surveys and projections of
space requirements were used by Agency spokesmen in
appeals to Congress, the Federal Works Administration,
and the General Services Administration for additional
space and authorizations and appropriations,for a new
building to house the Agency.
Approved For Release 2001/$LMR RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/131 ,Kfc-FDP93-00939R000100010001-5
At the end of September 1951 the approved Mili-
tary Construction Act included.a $38-million author-
ization for. a new CIA building. There was, however,
no Congressional appropriation of funds to implement
the authorization;.and there was serious doubt by
some Agency planners that the appropriation was
adequate to meet estimated construction needs. The
Agency and other Governmental. departments -- Interior,'
Navy, and GSA, in particular -- were uncertain about
the suitability, in fact the availability, of potential
construction sites. By June 1953, however, the General
Services Administration recommended the Langley site as
the best available. As will be noted subsequently,
not everyone agreed with the GSA recommendation --
the proponents and opponents would continue to put
their particular cases on view until the 11th hour,
when the Agency was asking the.Senate Appropriations
Committee for an appropriation for building at the
Langley site.
Approved For Release 2001 1 B' DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/19. RTDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Chapter II
The Concept Formalized
In the early 1950's the Office of Defense
Mobilization (ODM) had established dispersion standards
for new construction of Government buildings; but in
November 1954 the new DCI, Allen Dulles,* requested
from*Flemming, the Director of ODM, an exception to
those dispersion standards to permit the Agency to
build within the. radius of high danger, an area
determined by the presumed results of an atomic attack
on Washington's primary targets -- the Pentagon, the
Capitol, and the White House. Construction of the
recently approved Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge
across the Potomac River with its approaches just
west of Memorial Bridge would necessitate the demolition
of a large portion of the buildings then occupied by
CIA. Additional buildings were scheduled for demolition
* On 26 February 1953 Dulles succeeded Smith as DCI;
on 23 April Lieutenant General Charles P.- Cabell was
sworn in as the new DDCI. 68/
Approved. For Release 2001 /'9 0 ,(,"DP53-00939R0001000-10001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/181E-'FDP93-00939R000100010001-5
when the Interior Department started the major project
of clearing the parkland areas of temporary structures.*
The DCI considered it essential that site and building
plans be formalized without delay for the construction
of a permanent headquarters facility to house the Agency
in the Washington metropolitan area. Accordingly he
stated in his letter to the Director of ODM, "after
careful consideration I have concluded that CIA could
not effectively accomplish its mission from such a
dispersed location." It was essential that the DCI
.be immediately available to the President and the
National Security Council (NSC). GSA had suggested,
and the Agency was considering, several federally
owned properties at distances varying from five to
ten miles from the White House. 69/ The Director of
ODM in.the Executive Office of the President told the
DCI on 31 December 1954 that
as a result'of the consultations we have
had and also as a result of the discussion
at a recent meeting of the Cabinet we are
willing to concur in the exception to the
* NCPC stated in a press release of 20 August 1954
that "Temporary Office and Resident Hall Buildings
will be demolished."
Approved For Release 2001/'JL$DP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/'9LOE:~"DP93-00939R000100010001-5
current "dispersion standards" ...
In concurring in the exception I hope,
however, you will give consideration to
the possibility of locating a portion of
your agency. at an emergency relocation
site. 70/
At this point new and additional emphasis had been
brought to all phases of the CIA planning effort.
The Expansion of the Planning Group, 1953-1955
The RECD had been transferred from the Office
of General Services (OGS) to the office of Procure-
ment and Supply (OP&S) of the DDA and carried with it
the preliminary planning responsibilities for a new
building. 71/ On 20 March 1953 OP&S became the
Logistics Office (OL) with James A. Garrison as
Chief.* 72/ As of 2 October 1952 the division had a
Table of Organization (T/0) of seven, with ten persons
on duty, counting detailees; seven additional individ-
uals were processing or awaiting security clearances.** 73/
* On 21 July 1954 the name was again changed, this
time to the Office of Logistics, the name in current
(1972) use.
** In early 1953 RECD moved from Room 215 of North
Building at 2430 E Street to the second floor of Alcott
Hall in the West Potomac Park area. The move provided
additional office space for the growing number of staff
and detailed employees required to manage and supervise
the world-wide responsibilities of the division.
Approved For Release 2001EJ GR!Bf$RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 25X1A Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001 /l t.J -PDP93-00939R000100010001-5
of federal buildings in the Washington metropolitan
area. Many GSA publications were presented and
explained,* using directives and publications on site
selection, physical characteristics, type of construc-
tion, material used, and liaison with state and local
utilities and jurisdictions. The briefers defined
in general terms the information that was to be de-
veloped by the Agency and furnished to GSA if GSA
were selected to be the design and construction
management agent. 75/ an. ensign
on detail to RECD from the Navy Department as a
civil engineer, joined the.planning group in late
1953. on detail
to RECD from the Air Force as a civil engineer, was
assigned to the planning group in early 1954.
was named project officer under the Chief of RECD.
This five-man group began the analysis of the
previously. collected data on space and special re-
quirements.. The data were compared with similar
* The principal GSA publications used'were: Guide
.for Space Planning and Layout, Instructions to Con-
tract Architects, Architectural Drawing Requirements,
and Structural, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering
Data.
Approved For Release 2001/8p EPfRDP93-00939ROO0100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001 /1 .R -'FDP93-00939R000100010001-5
planning information collected by.the State Department
and by.NSA in the course of preparing.a "space direc-
tive" for the construction of its new headquarters
facilities.* Ambrose provided the Agency with a copy
of the Department of.State space directive dated Sep-
tember 1954;?and this was invaluable to the RECD planning
group in its early stages. This 33-page detailed
document listed a total of
square feet of
25X1
space to be constructed for
employees at 21st
25
Street and Virginia'Avenue, N.W.
76/ Meanwhile the
Acquisitions Branch of RECD was engaged in extensive
preliminary site surveys.**
More than 40 commercial and federal site loca-
tions within a 20-minute vehicle radius of the White
House were surveyed.*** Sites in the metropolitan area,
* CIA's Finance Sub-Committee, headed by Lawrence
R. Houston, General Counsel, was studying the advantages
and disadvantages of "lease-purchase legislation" after
receiving from the PBS a copy of a prospectus covering
the new Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) building to be
built near Germantown, Maryland.
25X1
*** On CIA's behalf, GSA was advertising in the area
newspapers for suitable sites of 70 acres.
Approved For Release 2001/,FCLA-RDP93-00939R000100010001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/131E> ,j