Justin Shubow is the president of the National Civic Art Society and former chairman of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
The collapse of the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum bill last month was ugly — a worthy project undermined by controversial amendments and political maneuvering. But the tumult that killed the bill should not distract from a separate problem: the proposed site.
In October 2022, the Smithsonian Institution announced its favored sites for two long-authorized museums: the American Women’s History Museum and the National Museum of the American Latino. The storied institution wanted to jam them into two awkwardly shaped parcels of land on the National Mall: one close to the Washington Monument, the other by the Tidal Basin. The assumption appears to be that the Mall is the only honorific location in Washington.
Yet the Mall ought to be preserved from massive structures that block important views and occupy much-needed public space. The Mall was originally conceived by engineer Pierre L’Enfant in 1791 as the grand axial backbone of a city built for future greatness. The McMillan Plan of 1901-02 rescued the Mall from a century of encroachment. These achievements should not be casually cast aside. The Mall is, as Congress formally recognized in 2003, “a substantially completed work of civic art.”
When Congress authorized the Latino Museum in 2020, it specified that the museum may not be located within the Reserve, a statutorily protected area that includes the Mall. That poses a problem for the Smithsonian, which has stubbornly fought federal bodies and advocacy groups for the right to build at its preferred locations.
A solution is staring the Smithsonian in the face, on land it once sought for the Air and Space Museum more than 70 years ago.
Directly across Independence Avenue from the Smithsonian Castle is the soon-to-be-vacated James V. Forrestal Building, which served as the Energy Department headquarters. The gigantic hulk severs the Mall from the city’s southwest quadrant and includes a rebarbative bridge blocking views of the castle. Forrestal is a stained Brutalist superblock, a product of 1960s urban renewal that demolished a historic African American neighborhood. Even fervent preservationists of Brutalism acknowledge the monotonous building’s flaws.
There’s also a practical case for replacing the building. A February 2025 report from the Urban Land Institute completed on behalf of the National Capital Planning Commission found that adaptive reuse of Forrestal was not viable. The analysis recommended that the building be “totally razed.” Relocating the Energy Department, the report said, would save more than $2 billion in deferred maintenance plus $41 million in annual operating costs.
The Trump administration’s plans align with the report’s conclusion. At the recommendation of the Public Buildings Reform Board, the Office of Management and Budget authorized Forrestal’s expedited disposal last year. Daniel Mathews, a member of the board, told me the building will likely be demolished.
The timing could not be better. With the megastructure gone, the Women’s History Museum and the Latino Museum can replace it.
The National Civic Art Society, the organization I lead, has been urging this for years. Others have as well. As far back as 2015, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington’s Democratic delegate to Congress, introduced a provision to demolish the Forrestal Building and replace it with “a nationally significant museum or memorial.”
In 2022, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts Chair Billie Tsien publicly urged Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch to consider the site. The commission, she noted, found the Smithsonian’s preferred sites on the Mall “highly problematic or unrealistic.”
The Forrestal site, Tsien said, offered the perfect solution. The location offers axial views to both the Smithsonian Castle and the U.S. Capitol and can accommodate up to 2 million square feet, which is more than enough for two museums. The site also sits steps away from the Smithsonian Metro station. Building the museums there “would repair the damage to the city’s fabric made by 1960s urban renewal.”
The damage could be further repaired by using the Forrestal site as a catalyst for overhauling the surrounding district. A plan developed in 2023, in a National Civic Art Society collaboration with Catholic University’s architecture school, would accomplish that by extending the Mall southward from the Smithsonian Castle to the waterfront, replacing the Brutalist Southwest Federal Center with 15 acres of green space. The plan connects the Mall to the Wharf through museums, plazas and promenades.
The Urban Land Institute panel similarly envisioned the corridor as Washington’s version of Barcelona’s “Las Ramblas” — a lovely pedestrian connection from the castle to the river.
The Women’s History Museum and the Latino Museum deserve a dignified setting worthy of their significance. The Forrestal site is the answer.
The post Culture wars aren’t the only problem with two new Smithsonian museums appeared first on Washington Post.
