ABSTRACT
Title of Thesis: MEANING THROUGH USE: ADAPTIVE REUSE OF
THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL
Kathleen Coleman O?Hearn, Master of Architecture, May 
2004
Thesis directed by: Professor Angel Nieves, PhD, Department of Historic 
Preservation
The intersection of urban and natural in addition to old and new in Georgetown 
allows a unique opportunity to explore how people today find meaning in these features.  
Adaptive reuse and the re-creation of experiences, as opposed to museum style 
preservation, are becoming integral components of an Historic Preservation continuum.  
Interacting with the past creates a living history.
This project strengthens the connection between the neighborhood and its history.  
The Genealogy Library and Archive places an importance on individual contributions to 
the history of Georgetown and provides a venue for the current population to discover 
this significance.  The patrons can also access other genealogical centers and ascertain 
their ?sense of place? within their own particular family history.   
The landscape program along the canal as well as the building?s bond with the 
urban fabric invites the people who work and live in Georgetown to use it as an 
alternative route to M Street.  The centerpiece to the design is the urban plaza at the 
intersection of M Street and Wisconsin with a terraced caf? and series of ramps cascading 
towards the canal.  The interpretive elements further nurture an understanding of 
Georgetown?s early reliance on the canal and create a unique node in the city.  
Placing a new value on the C & O canal and engaging it in everyday life creates a 
stronger sense of place.  The history of the site will not be relegated to the one time 
museum visit but will gain meaning through constant use.
MEANING THROUGH USE: ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE 
CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL IN GEORGETOWN
By
Kathleen Coleman O?Hearn
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Architecture
2004
Advisory Committee:
Dr.  Angel David Nieves, Chair
Professor Julie Gabrielli
Professor John Maudlin-Jeronimo
ii
iii
DEDICATION
To my wonderful family
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank many friends and Professors who have guided me through this endeavor, 
especially, Rochelle Martin, Ed Orlowski, Brooke Wortham, and John Jeronimo.  A 
special thanks to the friends who helped me through the final phase of the thesis, Tracy 
Marquis, Vanessa Vap, Sonia Somilar, Melissa Gill, Colin Tarbert, Sara Salizar, Chelsea 
Dean, Mie, Arthur, Noah, Nigel, John and Brian.
I especially wish to thank my family, Fran, Cait, Alison, Mom and Dad for their love and 
support throughout my journey seeking a degree in Architecture.  I could never have 
done it without all of you.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................... i
MEANING THROUGH USE: ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE CHESAPEAKE AND 
OHIO CANAL IN GEORGETOWN .................................................................................. i
DEDICATION...................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1: Georgetown, Washington, DC..................................................................... 1
SITE LOCATION ...........................................................................................................................................2
HISTORY OF GEORGETOWN AND THE C & O CANAL ..................................................................................4
LOCKS AND SLUICE GATES .........................................................................................................................6
PRIOR PLANNING STUDIES ..........................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2: Theory........................................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER 3: Site Analysis.............................................................................................. 13
GEORGETOWN ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................13
C & O CANAL ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................23
SITE PHOTOS .............................................................................................................................................32
SITE OF BUILDING .....................................................................................................................................55
vi
CHAPTER 4: Precedent Studies....................................................................................... 56
BUILDINGS ................................................................................................................................................56
WATERFRONTS IN URBAN CONTEXTS .......................................................................................................59
STREET SECTIONS .....................................................................................................................................64
CHAPTER 5: Program Analysis ...................................................................................... 66
URBAN CANAL PROGRAM .........................................................................................................................66
BUILDING PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................67
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS ..........................................................................................................................69
CHAPTER 6: Design Approach ....................................................................................... 72
CHAPTER 7: Initial Partis................................................................................................ 73
CHAPTER 8: Design Conclusions ................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX 1: Georgetown Inventory of Historic Sites .................................................. 91
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................. 97
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Washington, D.C.  Georgetown is highlighted..................................................... 1
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Georgetown, the C & O Canal?s urban stretch is ............. 2
Figure 3 Georgetown 1862 (Johnson and Ward Map, Library of Congress Website) ....... 5
Figure 4 C & O Canal Lock #2 Habs DC Geo (Library of Congress Website) ................. 6
Figure 5 Lock in action....................................................................................................... 7
Figure 6 Example of a Sluice Gate ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 7 Georgetown Street Grid...................................................................................... 13
Figure 8 Georgetown Figure Ground................................................................................ 14
Figure 9 Walkability Diagram .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 10 Georgetown Significant Buildings ................................................................... 16
Figure 11 Public Transportation in Georgetown. ............................................................. 17
Figure 12 Maps of Popular Trails ..................................................................................... 18
Figure 13 Zoning Diagram................................................................................................ 21
Figure 14 Topography of Georgetown ............................................................................. 22
Figure 15 Retail, Housing and Office Locations .............................................................. 23
Figure 16 Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Locations .................................................... 24
Figure 17 ?Nine to Five? Uses and ?Empty? Buildings ................................................... 25
Figure 18 Possible site locations / program changes ........................................................ 26
Figure 19 View Corridors to the Potomac ........................................................................ 27
Figure 20 Lock Location................................................................................................... 28
Figure 21 Sections along the Canal .................................................................................. 29
viii
Figure 22 Site Photos........................................................................................................ 32
Figure 23 Site Photos -  Bridges ........................................................................................ 33
Figures 24 through Figure 38 Images along the canal by block????????.34 - 48
Figures for Climatic Data??????????????????????...49 - 54
Figure 39 Site Location..................................................................................................... 55
Figure 40 Sarphatistraat Offices ....................................................................................... 56
Figure 41 Butler's Wharf, St. Saviour's Dock, and River Commuter (Heller Website) ... 57
Figure 42  San Antonio Riverwalk Diagram .................................................................... 59
Figure 43 Arizona Canal Diagram.................................................................................... 60
Figure 44 Hakata Canal Pictures (Gandel) ....................................................................... 61
Figure 45 Hakata Canal Diagrams.................................................................................... 62
Figure 46 Castro Street Section (Jacobs, Allan) ............................................................... 64
Figure 47 Amsterdam Canal Sections (Jacobs, Allan) ..................................................... 65
Figure 48 Balcony Parti .................................................................................................... 73
Figure 49 Arcade Parti...................................................................................................... 74
Figure 50 Stepping Stone Parti ......................................................................................... 75
Figure 51 Building Scheme One....................................................................................... 76
Figure 52 Building Scheme Two ...................................................................................... 77
Figure 53 Building Scheme Three .................................................................................... 78
Figure 54 Entertainment Programming ............................................................................ 79
Figure 55  Figure ground of the C & O Canal and Genealogy Building.......................... 82
Figure 56  Site Plan of the Genealogy Center and its relation to the Church yard........... 82
Figure 57  Wisconsin Avenue Floor Plan......................................................................... 83
ix
Figure 58  Canal Level Floor Plan.................................................................................... 83
Figure 59  Mezzanine Floor Plan...................................................................................... 84
Figure 60  Research Level ................................................................................................ 84
Figure 61  Wisconsin Avenue Elevation .......................................................................... 85
Figure 62   Canal Elevation .............................................................................................. 85
Figure 63  Section Two..................................................................................................... 86
Figure 64  Section Three................................................................................................... 86
Figure 65 Interpretive Sign along the Towpath ................................................................ 87
Figure 66  Interior Perspective of the Reading Room ...................................................... 87
Figure 67 Perspective from the Towpath.......................................................................... 88
Figure 68 Perspective from the Wisconsin Avenue Bridge.............................................. 88
Figure 69 Model from the Wisconsin Avenue Bridge...................................................... 89
Figure 70 Model from Wisconsin Avenue........................................................................ 89
Figure 71 Model from the C & O Canal........................................................................... 90
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
B & O ? Baltimore and Ohio
C & O ? Chesapeake and Ohio
D.C. ? District of Columbia
NHPA ? National Historic Preservation Act
NPS ? National Park Service
SHPO ? State Historic Preservation Office
CHAPTER 1: Georgetown, Washington, DC
Georgetown is a designated historic district in the United States capital, Washington D.C.  
There are approximately 4000 primary buildings c. 1765-1940.  It was established as a 
historic district by the Old Georgetown Act in September, 1950.  It became a National 
Historic Landmark in May 1967.  It is roughly bounded by Dumbarton Oaks to the north, 
Rock Creek Park on the east, the Potomac River to the south, and Archibald Park to the 
west (Historic Preservation website).  An urban neighborhood surrounded by nature.
Figure 1 Washington, D.C.  Georgetown is highlighted
2
Site Location
The site for this thesis is the first mile of the C & O canal, which runs through the
southern edge of Georgetown.  
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Georgetown, the C & O Canal?s urban stretch is 
highlighted.
3
Georgetown is comprised of mostly row houses of differing square footages, allowing for 
a fairly diverse population.  Georgetown University lies on the western edge and its 
influx of students intensifies this already lively neighborhood. The two busy retail streets, 
M Street and Wisconsin Avenue, cross south of the geographic center, alluding to 
Georgetown?s early reliance on the waterfront.  Just south of M Street is the C & O 
Canal, a National Historic Landmark, which is almost desolate in comparison to the rest 
of Georgetown.  Most of the buildings that line the canal have their backs to the water.  
Many of the buildings are considered historic, their original uses directly dependent on 
the canal; but over time they have forgotten the canal.  Recently new construction has 
made small gestures towards the canal but a more aggressive approach is necessary.  
Many people are unaware of the canal.  Some know the canal from their one-time ride on 
the canal boat run by the National Park Service.  It is no longer a vital part of 
Georgetown?s existence.  
The juxtaposition of this ?low? technology employing the natural properties of water, and 
the twenty-first century population is intriguing.  While Georgetown successfully 
harmonizes historic architecture with modern life, the original ?reason for being? is 
obscured.  By placing a new value on the canal, increasing the feeling of security and 
fostering public interaction the C & O Canal can once again enjoy an a prominent place 
in the urban fabric.
4
History of Georgetown and the C & O Canal
The earliest settlers of the area just west of Rock Creek and along the Potomac River are 
the Nacotchankes (also named the Anacostians) of the Algonquin Nation.  They lived on 
cultivated farms, employed canoes and manufactured many types of stone tools from 
their quarries in the vicinity.  It is believed that other tribes traveled from far away to 
trade with the Nacothankes, establishing the area now known as Georgetown as a place 
of commerce from the beginning (Ecker, p. 4).   
In 1751, present day Georgetown began to take shape, initially as a tobacco port.  A 
desire to link this significant port with cities along the Ohio River grew, as did the town, 
and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal was conceived to bypass the un-navigable Potomac 
River.   Though this was originally George Washington?s dream, the lack of funding and 
the daunting technological effort required delayed its inception and it was not begun until 
1828.  The map below shows Georgetown in 1862.  The importance of the waterfront is 
evidenced by the many streets, which cross the canal and connect Georgetown to the 
Potomac.   The major commodities shipped along the canal were coal, ice, wheat, and 
lumber  (Hahn, p.20).    By the 1830's flour and paper mills were built along the 
waterfront to harness the waterpower generated by sluice gates and the 35' vertical drop 
between the canal and the Potomac.  The height of the canal?s prosperity occurred during 
the early 1880?s but it was short lived.  The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which held a 
majority of canal bonds, took advantage of the damaging flood of 1889.  Repairs were 
made slowly.  Business along the canal began to wan and by 1924 the canal was closed.  
5
The character of Georgetown changed as well.  Streetcar lines were built connecting 
Georgetown to Rockville, Alexandria and Washington City, which encouraged the retail 
growth on M Street (Smith, p. 31).  Along the waterfront though, the once thriving 
seaport in the late1800?s was much more industrialized by the 1920?s.  ?Smokestacks had 
        Figure 3 Georgetown 1862 (Johnson and Ward Map, Library of Congress Website)
replaced ships' masts on the skyline"  (Smith, p. 2).  Another factor contributing to the 
decline of the waterfront was the fact that the B & O Railroad decided to connect 
Baltimore with Southwest D.C. but not Georgetown and the once prosperous grocery 
business suffered.  Congress' authority over Georgetown complicated matters by 
impeding their transportation solutions (Smith, p. 7).   
6
Georgetown managed to survive and today it is not only a dynamic neighborhood of DC 
but it is a remarkably intact example of a complete historic town.  Wisconsin Avenue and 
M Street are still the lively retail centers they once were but this is in stark contrast to the 
condition of Georgetown?s original reason for being, the port and canal. 
Locks and Sluice Gates
                  Figure 4 C & O Canal Lock #2 Habs DC Geo (Library of Congress Website)
The series of locks along the canal act as an elevator for boats, lifting and lowering them 
to different elevations as necessary.  Each lock moves the boat about 10 feet in elevation.  
The locks work by sectioning off a stretch of the canal with wooden gates.  A boat is 
towed by mule into one section of the canal and the gate behind is closed.  The gate in 
front allows water to enter (or drain) via timber shutters, known as ?paddles?, and 
equalizes the water level with the next section and the boat is lifted (or lowered)  A 
reservoir is necessary to provide the excessive water used by the canal.  Moving one boat 
7
down and one up with the same ?lock movement? is the most efficient use of water but it 
takes a longer time (Harris, p. 74).  On the C & O canal the locks are manually 
maneuvered and the completion of one lock takes about 8 minutes, utilizing 100,000 
gallons of water (NPS).  
Figure 5 Lock in action
Sluice gates are spurs off of the canal, which 
take advantage of the change in elevation 
between the canal and the surrounding area.  
The power generated by gravity fueled water 
can be harnessed.  In Georgetown flour and 
paper mills were powered by the C & O canal 
in the 1800?s.
Figure 6 Example of a Sluice Gate     
8
Prior Planning Studies
The 1975 Georgetown Waterfront Area Study 
This study considered the proposed ?Potomac River Freeway? which was to 
connect downtown DC with the Key Bridge.  Goals established were:
 Preservation and strengthening of Georgetown as a viable community within 
the District of Columbia
 More efficient accommodation of traffic moving through the area
 Preservation and enhancement of those qualities of Georgetown which justify 
its designation as a Registered National Landmark
 Enhancement of scenic vistas of the Potomac River, parks and monuments as 
views from Georgetown (Georgetown Planning Commission, p. 12).
Boathouse Issue
Currently there are three main boathouses in use along the Potomac River in the 
Georgetown area.  They are public but Georgetown University and George 
Washington University use them as well.  Both Universities are looking to build 
their own boathouses and the public also needs a new, more modernized, 
boathouse.  Georgetown University?s proposed boathouse, to be located to the 
west of the Key Bridge, has been greatly contested.  They are seeking a land swap 
with the National Park Service to locate the boathouse near the bridge instead of 
on the land the University currently owns about a mile west of the bridge.  The 
proximity of the new location to the bridge is being debated due to its possible 
9
detrimental effect on the views when entering Georgetown from the C & O trail.  
The University states that it will be a better solution than building far up river 
with the accompanying access road to it.  The boathouse could be a mark the 
entry to Georgetown as well.  If possible though, the best location for all three 
desired boathouses is in the zone along the Potomac, to the east of the bridge, just 
south of the canal.  An under utilized parking pad currently occupies the site (see 
figure 17).  By infilling this zone with boathouses the urban fabric extends from 
Georgetown all the way to the water?s edge and it does not leak out past the Key 
Bridge, keeping the area beyond more pastoral.  The boathouses would stimulate 
more pedestrian activity in the north-south direction encouraging views of the 
canal as well.  
Whitehurst Freeway Removal
Joe Passoneau, a noted highway designer, has lobbied for the removal of the 
Whitehurst freeway for years.  His design ?An Avenue Depressed at Wisconsin? 
re-invents K street as the freeway, depressing it to pass underneath Wisconsin 
Avenue.  Wisconsin Avenue would still enjoy its direct connection to the 
waterfront and the visual link from the other north-south streets would be greatly 
enhanced.   
10
CHAPTER 2: Theory
There are many different approaches to historic preservation from the easily understood 
?museum? approach to the abstract preservation of a memory or ritual.  Museum quality 
preservation is the commonly anticipated method where the object being preserved is 
restored to its original pristine condition.  Often extensive research and educated 
conjecture is necessary to achieve this type of preservation.    This is an appropriate 
manner of preservation for high profile, architecturally spectacular buildings such as the 
Library of Congress (Moore, p. 50).  Another area where this approach could be well 
employed is when significant meaning is derived from the specific condition of a 
structure such as slave quarters or pioneer homes.   Some problems arise when taking this 
approach to historic preservation though.  This can lead to a ?fantasy? of history, an 
unblemished state that never really occurred (Wallace, p. 10).   The potential for error and 
hidden biases are increased as well.  Another difficulty is the fact that realistically we can 
not, nor do we desire, to preserve everything.  Each generation must be allowed to add 
their own layer of history.  
This thesis focuses on the significance of adaptive reuse.  Uses change, buildings are 
reconfigured, and the patina of age is allowed to show, creating a richer environment 
(Moore, p. 55).  This allows a new generation to become part of the time continuum, and 
creates a living history.  Much thought is necessary to conceive a meaningful adaptive 
reuse.  When designing an adaptive reuse, David Lowenthal states we must first know 
our own biases: we will change structures over time.  The issue becomes how will we 
11
change them?  (Lowenthal).   What do we keep and why?  This project acknowledges the 
historic status of the C & O Canal and seeks to reconnect the public to it in a new way.  
Its use as a hiking and biking path beyond Georgetown is successful.  Here the 
opportunity to enjoy the natural landscape is well utilized.  It is the urban connection that 
is missing and the intersection of built and natural is left inanimate.  The fact that 
Georgetown is the origination of the canal exacerbates this deficiency.  
Adaptive reuse can bring the change in values and the culture more into focus for future 
generations as well.  By applying a new use to a structure it is easier to understand these 
value changes, or perhaps more interesting, see the similarities we still share with our 
predecessors.  Contextual information is important to reading a landscape; it allows for 
greater understanding but means looking at a much larger picture than one building can 
possibly show (Lewis).   By tackling the first mile of the C & O canal this adaptive reuse 
in Georgetown can be more meaningful than the reuse of one ?lonely? historic building 
somewhere else.  
The material and workmanship of the canal and the adjacent buildings are values worth 
preserving and passing on to the future.  The use of natural light and ventilation in old 
construction is gaining renewed interest today.  Sustainability is a contemporary issue but 
it was a way of life previously.  The interaction with nature needs not be relegated to the 
trails outdoors but can be manifested in the building too.  When it was first built the canal 
represented the American dominance over the landscape, now the urban canal can 
represent the American desire to live more symbiotically with nature.  Another value to 
12
explore is the understanding of past technologies.  The canal was a means of connectivity 
before the ubiquitous use of trains, automobiles and airplanes.  Traffic is a constant 
concern today.  Many are beginning to look at public transportation, living within 
walking distance of work and commuting by bicycle as an answer to this problem.  The 
site chosen for this project could become a center for transportation, a place of transition 
for commuters using alternative means.   While this idea would connect people to the 
canal it would still have limited use, a limited population and time period.  If the site 
became a more encompassing center it would appeal to a broader population and have 
more consistent use.  
A genealogy center would give people the opportunity to have a more interactive 
experience with Georgetown?s history.  Populations not currently associated with 
Georgetown were integral to the formation of the town as we know it.   Many people 
could find direct links to Georgetown?s history, increasing their sense of belonging to the 
town.  Other patrons could learn about Georgetown or employ the center as a link to 
similar centers searching for their own family history and personal sense of belonging.
This project seeks to be a unique moment in the city.  A place where people can 
reconnect with Georgetown?s history, urbanity and nature.   
13
CHAPTER 3: Site Analysis
Georgetown Analysis
The street grid, figure below, shows the regularity of the streets in Georgetown and the 
size of the blocks, which are pedestrian friendly.  This diagram also shows the breakdown 
of the connections to the water.  Compare the figure below to the map of Georgetown in 
1862 (figure 3) shown earlier.  The Whitehurst freeway truncates the relationship 
between Georgetown and the waterfront.  Seven streets continued to the Potomac 
previously but today only Wisconsin Avenue and 35
th
 street make the connection.  In 
addition, while nine streets crossed the canal in 1862, only five pedestrian friendly streets 
do currently and all are at the eastern end of the canal.  The Whitehurst freeway and Key 
Bridge cross at the western edge of Georgetown high above the canal and Potomac. 
Figure 7 Georgetown Street Grid
14
Figure 8 Georgetown Figure Ground 
Georgetown has a very regular, fine grain urban fabric throughout most of the 
neighborhood.  Along the canal and to the south the buildings are larger but still tightly 
knit.  
15
Figure 9 Walkability Diagram
Georgetown is extremely pedestrian friendly.  From the intersection of M Street and 
Wisconsin Avenue one can walk to anywhere in Georgetown in about 15 to 20 minutes.
16
Figure 10 Georgetown Significant Buildings
Georgetown University is on the western edge, Duke Ellington School is to the north, and 
the school of Arts is to the north along Wisconsin Avenue.
17
Figure 11 Public Transportation in Georgetown. 
The bus system is centered on the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue and M Street.  The 
diagram above shows the bus routes in Georgetown and the proximity of the nearest 
Metro station, Foggy Bottom.  Georgetown is linked by bus to nearby suburbs, Rosslyn 
Virginia, and Bethesda, Maryland as well as downtown.    The principal activity occurs at 
the intersection of M Street and Wisconsin Avenue.  The bus lines do not connect directly 
to the Foggy Bottom Metro station.   In the 1970?s Georgetown opted not to be connected 
with the Metro.  The result is inconvenience for commuters, and subsequently lower 
office rents as well.   Traffic can be so snarled that on a weekend afternoon a trip from 
the Key Bridge to Rock Creek Park, less than one mile, can take forty-five minutes.  
Police directing traffic at M and Wisconsin provides a quick fix.   
To Rosslyn
To Bethesda
To Downtown
18
The following figures are maps of popular trails in the C & O canal?s vicinity.  The 
Capital Crescent Trail has recently finished its connection to Rock Creek Trails near 
Silver Spring, the origin of the trail.  Note the Crescent trail bypasses the canal through 
Georgetown in favor of the Potomac River, the urban connection is lost.  The East Coast 
Greenway is a developing 
trail, which seeks to link the 
entire East Coast with trails.  
It ties all components of the 
transect from rural to urban 
together.  
Figure 12 Maps of Popular Trails
(http://www.cctrail.org/)
19
20
http://www.nps.gov
21
Figure 13 Zoning Diagram
The density is higher along the canal and it is mixed use, commercial/offices and 
housing.  Georgetown University is on the western edge of the neighborhood.  Retail is 
centered along Wisconsin Avenue and M Street.
22
Figure 14 Topography of Georgetown
The topography is fairly steep in Georgetown, dropping about 100 feet from the northern 
edge of Georgetown to the Potomac River.   The canal itself is approximately 30? above 
the river.
23
C & O Canal Analysis
The Canal is approximately 3400 feet long and 50? wide between Key Bridge and Rock 
Creek.  It narrows to 20? at the locks.
Figure 15 Retail, Housing and Office Locations
Retail is located primarily along M Street.  North of the C & O Canal is a mix of retail, 
office and housing.  The large retail building north of the canal and west of Wisconsin 
Avenue is the Georgetown Park Mall.  As with most malls, this building is focused 
inward.  It does make a small gesture to the canal with a modest entry to the towpath.  
The Mall also has housing above and connects to the Canal House Apartment building on 
the south side of the canal.  The land use south of the canal is bisected by Wisconsin 
Avenue, to the west is housing and to the east is predominately office. 
24
Figure 16 Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Locations
There are two large hotels and many restaurants in the vicinity.  Recreational areas are 
located along the Potomac.  
25
Figure 17 ?Nine to Five? Uses and ?Empty? Buildings
Along the canal the traditional office buildings are only in use during business hours.  
They create voids at other times.  Coupled with the vacant buildings, buildings housing 
only machinery and blind facades, the canal has very little conjunct activity.   
26
Figure 18 Possible site locations / program changes
The figure above shows the empty lots and potentially viable buildings for site 
consideration.  Changing the current programming or reworking the fa?ade may be the 
most suitable course of action for some of these locations.  The zone along the Potomac 
River west of Wisconsin Avenue is a very large parking pad.  Despite the location it is 
not that well used.  
27
Figure 19 View Corridors to the Potomac
The primary location of pedestrian activity is along M Street.  When crossing Wisconsin 
Avenue, 31
st
 Street and 30
th
 Street one can see the Potomac River though the Whitehurst 
Freeway is a bit distracting.  View corridors are important to encourage people to explore 
the waterfront.  By eliminating the Whitehurst Freeway the views are strengthened and 
the link to the water is enhanced.  Encouraging people to walk past the canal in a North-
South direction is advantageous to this project.   
28
Figure 20 Lock Location
The locks are important elements to the canal.  This technology is what allows the canal 
to function.  All of these locks are working and the NPS runs canal boats through lock 
number 4 twice a day, three seasons of the year.  Coincidentally, the lock locations 
coordinate with the view corridors noted in figure 16.
29
Figure 21 Sections along the Canal
30
31
32
Site Photos
Figure 22 Site Photos
The top photo depicts the Ritz Carton Hotel and condos on South Street.  The incinerator 
stack is in the background.  The bottom left photo is a view of the path and rowhouses on 
block five north (see figure 30). The bottom right is historic Grace Episcopal Church at 
the corner of Wisconsin Avenue and South Street.
33
Figure 23 Site Photos - Bridges
34
F
ig
u
r
e
 
2
4
 
B
lo
c
k
 
1
 
N
o
r
t
h
35
F
ig
u
r
e
 
2
5
 
B
lo
c
k
 
2
 
N
o
r
t
h
36
F
ig
u
r
e
 
2
6
 
B
lo
c
k
 
3
 
N
o
r
t
h
37
F
ig
u
r
e
 
2
7
 
B
lo
c
k
 
4
 
N
o
r
t
h
38
F
ig
u
r
e
 
2
8
 
B
lo
c
k
 
5
 
N
o
r
t
h
39
F
ig
u
r
e
 
2
9
 
B
lo
c
k
 
6
 
N
o
r
t
h
40
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
0
 
B
lo
c
k
 
7
 
N
o
r
t
h
41
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
1
 
B
lo
c
k
 
8
 
N
o
r
t
h
42
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
2
 
B
lo
c
k
 
1
 
S
o
u
t
h
43
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
3
 
B
lo
c
k
 
2
 
S
o
u
t
h
44
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
4
 
B
lo
c
k
 
3
 
S
o
u
t
h
45
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
5
 
B
lo
c
k
 
4
 
S
o
u
t
h
46
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
6
 
B
lo
c
k
 
6
 
S
o
u
t
h
47
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
7
 
B
lo
c
k
 
5
 
S
o
u
t
h
48
F
ig
u
r
e
 
3
8
 
B
lo
c
k
 
7
 
S
o
u
t
h
49
Climatic Data
Climatic Data from Washington National Airport, D.C. according to the National 
Oceanic and Atmosphere Association (NOAA Website).  This climatic data is given not 
only to further explain the site but also to aid in sustainable design.  
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
January April July October Annual
Normal Daily Maximum Temperature Degrees F 
30 year average
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
January April July October Annual
Average Relative Humidy (%) 2002  42 year average
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
January April July October Annual
Normal Daily Minimum Temperature, Degrees F 
30 year average
51
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
January April July October Annual
Average Windspeed (MPH) 2002  54 year average
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
January April July October Annual
Normal Daily Mean Temperature, Degrees F 
30 year average
52
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
January April July October
Normal Monthly Heating Degree Days (Base 65) 
30 year average - Annual = 3999
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
January April July October
Normal Monthly Cooling Degree Days (Base 65)
30 year average - Annual = 1560
53
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
January March May July September November
Normal Monthly Precipitation (Inches)
30 year average - Annual = 39.35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
January April July October Annual
Sunshine - Average (%) Possible
50 year average
54
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
January March May July September November
Cloudiness - Mean Number of Days
48 year average
ANNUAL : Clear  96  Partly Cloudy  106 Cloudy  164
55
Site of Building
Figure 39 Site Location
The site chosen for this project is the parking pad adjacent to the switching station south 
of the canal.  It is at the intersection of the canal and Wisconsin Avenue.  This 
intersection is at the center of the study area.  The pedestrian activity has the potential to 
be great here.   The historic Wisconsin Avenue Bridge is a nice set piece to work with as 
well.  
56
CHAPTER 4: Precedent Studies
Buildings
Sarphatistraat Offices, Amsterdam, Stephen Holl architect 
Figure 40 Sarphatistraat Offices
This office is a renovated warehouse with a new addition, along the banks of the 
Singel Gracht.  Holl integrates the interior spaces while allowing the old and new 
exterior elements to intensify one another through contrast (GA Document, p. 39).  
The materials, fenestration and style are all indicative of the present age.  The 
massing is similar to the original design though.  Programmatically, Holl 
addresses the public and the canal with a plaza space for public gatherings and 
performances along the immediate edge of the canal.  Architecturally the new 
wing reaches out towards the canal and encloses the plaza space on two sides.  
The building is layered with perforated copper panels, plywood and the buildings 
57
systems.  By bouncing light between these layers ?Chromatic Space? is created 
(GA Document, p. 39).  Holl?s signature element of light is well utilized here, not 
only interacting with the building but the canal?s water as well.  
St. Saviour?s Dock and Butler?s Wharf, London
Figure 41 Butler's Wharf, St. Saviour's Dock, and River Commuter (Heller Website)
The balconies of these buildings recall the architecture of the historical canal 
bridges.  This area of London also makes use of the river as commuter transit.  
London is not the only city to use commuter boats, New York also has a ferry to 
its suburbs in New Jersey.  
58
Carme de Abaixo, Santiago de Compostella, Spain
The vernacular building materials are employed well here.
Design Lessons from Building Precedents:
 Old and new elements can contrast one another to highlight their differences 
and similarities visually 
 Specifying a programmatic element such as ?performance area? to engage the 
public with the canal can be advantageous but only if the public actually uses 
the space.  An open plaza could have many uses or it could be vacant.  
Perhaps more specific architecture should be used.
 Boats are a viable and unique mode of commuter transit in some areas 
 The materiality of water, light and stone (of the canal wall) can be explored 
and capitalized on to form relationships between old and new construction
 ?Defamiliarization? of the building materials can be a good strategy towards 
the comparing and contrasting the old and the new as well.
59
Waterfronts in Urban Contexts
San Antonio?s Riverwalk 
The Riverwalk here is quite famous and many tourists visit this each year.  
Programmatically, the Riverwalk is full of destination restaurants and retail shops 
geared towards tourists.   The walk is actually a loop with no particular 
destination although there are places of special interest nearby.  Recently, the 
canal has been the focus of new design just outside the city.  The recreational 
aspect of the canal has been nurtured as well as the ecological conditions.  
Figure 42  San Antonio Riverwalk Diagram
60
Arizona Canal
Two projects have been completed here recently, which reconnect the community 
to the historically significant canals.  The Sunnyslope Canal Demonstration 
Project by landscape architect M. Paul Friedberg and artist Jackie Ferrara. There 
are many interpretive spaces along the canal.  The rich history of the ancient 
Hohokum society is drawn upon to create some of the interpretive spaces.
Figure 43 Arizona Canal Diagram 
Some of the spaces included are:
 a ?kiva? space, which is part of the Hohokum religious life
 a human sundial allowing the public to participate
 a water table ?room?, which maps the ancient and current canals.
 The pedestrian and bike paths are separated by 
61
Hakata Canal
Jon Jerde designed ?Canal City Hakata? a multi building, multi-use commercial 
district along the Naka River canal.  The programming consists of two hotels, and 
office building, a large department store a Cineplex and outdoor performance 
areas.  The buildings are brightly colored and curvaceous like the canal.  The 
section created has a strong sense of enclosure.  The curves allow for the 
pedestrian to experience each space separately.  The ?narrative? of the canal 
unfolds in stages.  
Figure 44 Hakata Canal Pictures (Gandel)
62
Figure 45 Hakata Canal Diagrams
63
Design Lessons from Building Precedents:
 Emulating the pedestrian bridges in style or material can be effective
 Make paths distinct from special areas
 Be inclusive in design, welcome all
 Use landscaping effectively; ?announce? the special areas
 Tell a story
 Use a variety of spaces connected by a structure sequentially
64
Street Sections
As noted previously, the section of the site is important to defining the design  method.  
These additional street sections are given to further this study.  All of these examples are 
from the Great Streets book by Allan Jacobs. 
Castro Street, Mountain View, California
Figure 46 Castro Street Section (Jacobs, Allan p.)
 Non symmetrical
 Multiple modes of transportation are accommodated
 ?Swing? area - the use is flexible, changing from parking to seating as desired
65
Amsterdam, the Netherlands 
Figure 47 Amsterdam Canal Sections (Jacobs, Allan p. )
 The canal acts as a street
 Three canals with various widths are highlighted here
 Pedestrian bridges link the two sides
 Boat mooring is allowed
 The canals are tree-lined like an American street 
 Buildings front the canals
 Stairs connecting the ground plane to the pedestrian bridges occur along the 
building face
66
CHAPTER 5: Program Analysis
Urban Canal Program
Activities encouraged:
 Hiking / Dog walking
 Bicycling ? 8? wide for two-way travel
 Boating from Georgetown to Violettes Lock: Mile 0-22 boating is allowed
 Fishing
Site Furniture:
 Markers for the Locks, Sluice Gates, Native Plants and Mileage
 Benches, bike parking and planters
 Lighting
 Interpretive Art
Programming necessary to foster interaction:
 Caf?, ice cream shop, juice bar
 Transportation center
 Quiet retail ? bookstore, art gallery, bicycle and boat rentals
 Office lunchrooms on canal
 Apartment gyms on canal
 Outdoor performance area
 Improved, well defined, trails 
 Observation tower
67
Building Program
Main Gallery / Entry   1,000 square feet
Coatroom      100 square feet
Restaurant / Caf? (3620 s.f.)
Seating for 60   1,000 square feet
Outdoor Seating for 60   1,000 square feet
Kitchen      400 square feet
Food Storage      200 square feet
Dishwashing and storage     200 square feet
Office      120 square feet
Restrooms      400 square feet 
Shipping & Receiving      300 square feet
Bicycle Rentals (1300 s.f.)
Rental Office      300 square feet
Storage Bays for 40 Bicycles      600 square feet
Repair shop      400 square feet
Georgetown Center for Genealogy (16640 s.f.)
Computer Labs 2 @ 600 s.f. each    1200 square feet
Offices 7 @ 120 s.f. each      840 square feet
Director, Archivist, Accounting, Computer Specialist,
2 Genealogists, Webmaster
Large Meeting Room 2 @ 800 s.f. each    1600 square feet
Library/Reading Room    3600 square feet
68
Library Space    6000 square feet
Librarian?s office      200 square feet
Archival Space    1000 square feet
Recording Lab      600 square feet
Conservation Lab      600 square feet
Restrooms      600 square feet
Storage      400 square feet
Bookstore   1,000 square feet
Mechanical/Electrical   3,000 square feet
Circulation       3,000 square feet
Total  29660 square feet 
69
Program Descriptions
Main Gallery ? 1,000 square feet 
This space includes interpretive art and some artifacts relating to the C & O Canal 
its history and culture.  An information desk will be included to assist visitors and 
to showcase some brochures such as maps.
Restaurant/Caf? ? 3,620 square feet
This caf? will provide seating for 60 people.  The caf? will take advantage of the 
views and proximity to the canal and will include a terrace for additional seating 
during seasonal weather.  The caf? will provide a variety of foods and beverages 
for breakfast, lunch and light dinners.   The food will be conducive to the needs of 
the recreational and commuting travelers such as fruits, salads, mineral waters, 
bagels, etc.  The kitchen contains cooking facilities, with walk-in storage, 
refrigerator and freezer.
Bicycle Rentals ? 2,000 square feet
The rental shop will include a rental office and storage bays for approximately 40 
bicycles.  Some tandem bikes and child safety seats will be included too.  The 
bicycles will be available on an hourly or daily basis.  A small repair shop will be 
located here as well.  Retail will not be included, patrons will be directed to the 
bike shop across the canal on Potomac Street.
Georgetown Center for Genealogy - 16640 square feet
Computer Labs ? Internet access to other genealogy centers, libraries and 
government centers is extremely important to researchers.   These should be 
separate from regular study areas due to the noise.
70
Offices - for various staff members
Large Meeting Rooms ? These rooms can be rented out to generate income or 
could be employed by the staff.  Another use could be to teach classes on using 
Genealogy software programs and information on how to research genealogy for 
the amateur.
Library Reading Room ? Space for relaxing and space for more serious research.  
Lighting is very important.
Library Space - The largest space requirement is for housing the actual 
documents.  Space for the particular immigrant populations unique to Georgetown 
will be denoted: African American, Jewish, German, Irish, and Scottish.  Maps, 
genealogies, and census records will all be available to researchers.  This library 
will have microfiche readers and photocopiers to aid patrons as well.  The library 
will not be a lending institution, all materials will be accessible but can not leave 
the premises.
Archival Space ? Space for very rare and fragile documents.  Copies will be made 
for patrons to utilize, or will be available with librarian assistance.
Recording Lab- A small recording lab will be available so that oral histories may 
be recorded and perhaps archived at the Center.  
Conservation Lab ? Space for the conservation and archiving of documents.  
Interns may have space to work and learn here as well.  The lab could work on 
documents for other libraries and museums too.   
Bookstore ? 2,000 square feet
71
Local History and Genealogy related materials would be sold here.  For example, 
maps delineating particular historical tours of Georgetown, archival materials, 
acid free paper, and genealogy software packages.  
72
CHAPTER 6: Design Approach
Design tactics:
 Frampton ? Defamiliarization of materials makes one refocus and rethink a 
situation
 Differing technologies
 Perhaps create a sharp contrast between the old and the new.  Preservationists 
prefer to have an easy ?reading? of what is original and what is new material, 
this technique might serve well in creating a comparison of values as well.
 Sustainable design ? comparison to the old and new techniques
 Lighting
 ?eyes? on street ? Jane Jacobs theories on urban design can enhance the canal 
towpath buildings
 Threshold elements to Georgetown
73
CHAPTER 7: Initial Partis
Parti One - Balconies
Figure 48 Balcony Parti
This parti makes use of balconies to foster a visual link to the canal.  Site furniture will be 
included as mentioned above in the program analysis.  Plantings will need care to create a 
landscape worth viewing.  Some buildings are not continuously occupied and some 
buildings are set high above the canal, creating some problems with this approach.
74
Parti Two  - Arcade
Figure 49 Arcade Parti
Some of the buildings along the canal are built at the very edge of the canal, precluding a 
pedestrian trail.   The discontinuous nature of the trail in Georgetown is a problem.  
Inserting an arcade on the canal level of the buildings continues the path.  The buildings 
are actively engaged with the canal and views are created.
75
Parti Three ? Stepping Stones
Figure 50 Stepping Stone Parti
This parti looks at a condition where the building face is at the canal?s edge.  A 
boardwalk or ?stepping stone? path is utilized to continue the towpath where it is 
currently discontinuous.  A tenting structure is used to call attention to specific areas of 
the canal, perhaps only the zones where pedestrians cross at the waterline.  
76
Building Scheme One
Figure 51 Building Scheme One
This scheme makes use of a bridge element.  This conceptual diagram gives the initial 
idea of a bridge but the placement and nature of the bridge would need to be explored in 
more depth.  The proximity to other bridges (pedestrian and auto) would need to be 
studied.  Also, what programming would be appropriate here?  The bridge may be a 
separate entity.  Perhaps it is more public, or perhaps it is actually an expansion of an 
existing bridge.
77
 Building Scheme Two
Figure 52 Building Scheme Two
This scheme makes a plaza area within the canal.  Seating for the caf? would be on a 
floating terrace.  Paths and stepping stones would lead to the main seating area.  One 
problem with this approach is that it bisects the canal.  This could be used to an 
advantage though.  Canal boats could travel east from this point and experience the locks.  
Row boats and kayaks would travel west with no locks to hinder movement.  This idea 
may be more suitable for a larger waterfront, perhaps it is too grand for the small canal.
78
Building Scheme Three
Figure 53 Building Scheme Three
This scheme employs the arcade parti.  The building could fill the site and possibly 
extend over the switching station and engage the canal with the arcade.  The arcade could 
be large and include the caf? seating or it could house only the trail.  Since this is the 
south side of the canal, the arcade would not receive any sunlight.  
79
Figure 54 Entertainment Programming
This sketch depicts some ideas on programming the larger site.  While the caf? and bike 
rental building(s) are to be the focus of the thesis design, the programming of the urban 
canal must be explored.  As mentioned above in the program analysis, there is some 
specific program elements that would need sites.  A fishing wharf, an outdoor 
performance area and boat landings.  This sketch also notes the possible relocation of the 
three proposed boathouses along the Potomac between Wisconsin Avenue and Potomac 
Avenue.  By placing the boathouses here there would be increased north-south pedestrian 
movement, another way to introduce the canal into the public realm.  Currently, not much 
of the general public travels south of M Street.   
80
CHAPTER 8: Design Conclusions
As with any project, this thesis has been a journey of exploration.  The design of the 
building overshadowed much of the initial ideas of landscape program along the canal, 
though some thoughts still came through.  The towpath was completed where it had been 
discontinuous, particularly along the southern edge of the canal, east of Wisconsin 
Avenue.  Earlier ideas for continuing the path along the Canal House, west of Wisconsin 
Avenue were not established.  Instead, the small plaza west of the Canal House was 
redesigned, incorporating an interpretive fountain which had been hidden from the path.  
The path encourages the pedestrian to leave the canal edge, circumnavigating the 
building, and re-entering the canal zone at the Genealogy Center.  Along the path at 
various points are small interpretive signs.  These are designed to emulate the Genealogy 
Center, providing a visual link and cohesion along the canal.  The signs are silk-screened 
glass, allowing the beauty of the canal stone to be filtered through the point of history 
illuminated.  A bench, industrial style lighting, indigenous plantings and bike parking are 
all integrated with the signage. 
The building was pulled away from the Wisconsin Avenue street edge to create an 
inviting, public, entrance to the C & O canal as well as give deference to the historic 
Grace Church?s yard.  In this manner the two public spaces read as one large space.  The 
redesign of the church yard aids this concept too.  The Church gates could open and the 
additional stairs can be used as a grand promenade to the tow path along the Canal edge.
81
The building design?s major cue is the ?stone box?.   All of the library stacks, documents, 
archives and conservation areas are housed within the box.  This keeps the light out, the 
mechanical system separate and it makes a visual statement as to what is the protected, 
significant element of the building.  The canal stone also creates a link to the canal wall; a 
vessel for history.  The reading room and gallery space are linear, glassy, lightweight 
elements along the northern edge of the box.  Here is the ephemeral passage of time, the 
current population?s place to meet history.  
The green roof, the glass along the north facing fa?ade and the thick stone walls 
protecting the light sensitive materials are all ways which aid the building?s sustainable 
aspect.   Sustainability is currently a popular component for buildings but before the 
advent of air conditioning and electricity it was a way of life.  By including sustainable 
aspects the building reinvents past ideas in the current time period.
The restaurant and terraced caf? invite people to linger along the canal.  The cascading 
ramps and grand staircase invite people to come down to the canal edge.  Benches 
provide space for people to rest and reflect on the past.  Perhaps people will come into the 
library itself and learn more about the history of the area, the populations who lived here 
and beyond, finding their own sense of place in history.
The following images are from the final presentation.  
82
Figure 55  Figure ground of the C & O Canal and Genealogy Building
Figure 56  Site Plan of the Genealogy Center and its relation to the Church yard
83
Figure 57  Wisconsin Avenue Floor Plan
Figure 58  Canal Level Floor Plan
84
Figure 59  Mezzanine Floor Plan                  
Figure 60  Research Level
85
Figure 61  Wisconsin Avenue Elevation
Figure 62   Canal Elevation
86
Figure 63  Section Two
Figure 64  Section Three
87
Figure 65 Interpretive Sign along the Towpath
Figure 66  Interior Perspective of the Reading Room
88
Figure 67 Perspective from the Towpath
Figure 68 Perspective from the Wisconsin Avenue Bridge
89
Figure 69 Model from the Wisconsin Avenue Bridge
Figure 70 Model from Wisconsin Avenue
90
Figure 71 Model from the C & O Canal
91
APPENDIX 1: Georgetown Inventory of Historic Sites
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Along C&O Canal from Rock Creek to D.C. boundary (extends into Maryland)
One of the nation's most intact 19th-century canals, preserved in a continuous 
185-mile natural setting; primary Potomac Valley commercial artery during mid-
19th century; focus of 20th century conservation efforts for its historical, natural, 
and recreational value; major features in D.C. include 5 miles of canal and 
towpath, 4 locks, remains of Potomac aqueduct and incline, Wisconsin Avenue 
bridge, portions of other roadway bridges and footbridges, various stone roadway 
and waterway culverts, wasteweirs, and spillways (1830-31 with later alterations); 
also Abner Cloud House (stone farm house, two stories plus basement, wide end 
chimney, built 1801, restored 1976-78) and B&O railroad bridge at Arizona 
Avenue (c.1906); National Monument designation 1961, NR listing 10/15/66 
(documented 8/9/79), NHP designation 1971, DC designation 1/23/73; within 
Georgetown HD and Potomac Gorge
Georgetown Commercial Buildings, M Street and Wisconsin Avenue
2803, 2919, 3056, 3068, 3072, 3112, 3116, 3209, 3211, & 3232 M Street, NW; 
1216, 1219, 1221, 1249, 1304, 1515, 1517, 1522, 1524, 1527, & 1529 Wisconsin 
Avenue, NW
Built c. 1780-1820; DC listing 11/8/64; within Georgetown HD
Georgetown Custom House and Post Office
1221 31st Street, NW
92
Built 1857-58 (Ammi Burnham Young, architect); DC listing 11/8/64, NR listing 
9/10/71; within Georgetown HD; US ownership
Georgetown Flour Mill: Bomford Mill (Pioneer Flour Mills)
3261 K Street, NW
Home of milling business established by Col. George Bomford (1782-1848), 
army ordnance expert and owner of Kalorama; built 1845-47 on site of 1832 flour 
mill (burned 1844); run by water power from C&O Canal, and in operation as 
cotton mill from 1847 until Civil War; converted to flour mill and enlarged c. 
1883; operated as Pioneer Flour Mills until 1913; adjacent K Street flour mill 
built 1922 on site of 1847 flour mill
owned by Alexander Ray; DC designation 1/23/73; within Georgetown HD
Georgetown Historic District
Roughly bounded by Reservoir Road and Dumbarton Oaks Park on the north, 
Rock Creek Park on the east, the Potomac River on the south, and Glover-
Archbold Parkway on the west. Remarkably intact example of a complete historic 
town; encompasses the area laid out as a port town in 1751 prior to the 
establishment of the District of Columbia, and later absorbed into the city of 
Washington; rich variety of residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial 
buildings dating from all periods; includes many of city's oldest buildings; narrow 
grid streets establish intimate scale in contrast to L'Enfant city; wide range of 
houses from simple frame dwellings to spaciously landscaped mansions recording 
all social levels of the community; architectural styles are also varied, including 
Federal, Greek Revival, Italianate, Queen Anne, Romanesque, and Classical 
93
Revival examples, as well as numerous vernacular structures; approximately 4000 
primary buildings c. 1765-1940; established by Old Georgetown Act 9/22/50; DC 
listing 11/8/64, NR listing 5/28/67, NHL designation 5/28/67
Georgetown Market
3276 M Street, NW
Public market constructed on site used for market since c. 1795; built in 1865 on 
fieldstone foundations of earlier market c. 1796; original 40-foot section 
expanded later; DC listing 11/8/64, NR listing 5/6/71; within Georgetown HD; 
DC ownership
Georgetown Paper Mill: District of Columbia Paper Manufacturing Company 
3255-59 K Street, NW
Built 1900-02; DC designation 1/23/73; within Georgetown HD
Georgetown Reservoir Gatehouse: Castle Gatehouse, Georgetown Reservoir
Near intersection of Reservoir Road & MacArthur Boulevard, NW
Picturesque landmark constructed as part of turn-of-the-century improvements to 
the municipal water system; stands at the entry to the 4-mile water tunnel from 
Georgetown Reservoir to McMillan Reservoir; symbol of Army Corps 
contributions to city's public health; designed to resemble the 1839 insignia of the 
Army Corps of Engineers; built 1899-1901, restuccoed 1958; DC designation 
1/29/74, NR listing 3/13/75
Georgetown Town Hall: Bank of Columbia 
(Georgetown Town Hall & Mayor's Office; Fire Company No. 5)
3210 M Street, NW
94
Remnants of an early home of one of the nation's first banks (1793-1826), which 
was extensively involved in the city's early development, construction of the 
Potomac Canal, and U.S. government financing; built 1796, occupied by bank 
until 1806, then by U.S. Bureau of Indian Trade (1807-22), Georgetown Town 
Hall 1823-63), Lang's Hotel (1863-70), D.C government offices and storage 
(1871-83); largely reconstructed and refaced in 1883 to house Fire Company No. 
5 (Peter Lauritzen, architect), which occupied until 1946; fa?ade incorporated in 
new building 1983; 3 stories, flat brick facade with corbelled cornice, Queen 
Anne style entry doors, original Flemish bond brickwork on upper floors; DC 
listing 11/8/64, NR listing 5/27/71, removed from NR 4/6/83; in Georgetown HD
Georgetown University Astronomical Observatory
Georgetown University 
Built 1841-44 (James Curley, architect); DC listing 11/8/64, NR listing 7/2/73; 
within Georgetown HD
Georgetown Visitation Convent and Preparatory School
1500 35th Street, NW
Among the first Catholic girls' schools in America, and first in the United States 
(Georgetown Academy for Young Ladies), established by religious women in 
1799; received first American charter of the Order of the Visitation in 1816; 
mother house for 13 convents; also housed Saint Joseph's Benevolent School 
c.1800-1918; associated with John Carroll and Leonard Neale, first U.S. Bishops; 
14 contributing buildings built from 1819 to 1932; DC listing 11/8/64 (Chapel), 
95
3/7/68 (Monastery and Academy Building), NR listing 3/29/91; within 
Georgetown HD
 Benevolent School: Built 1819, enlarged as infirmary 1860
 Chapel of the Sacred Heart: Built 1821 (Joseph Picot de Cloriviere, 
architect); Classical Revival stucco facade with Ionic pilasters and bell 
tower; altered 1857
 Meat House: Built 1836
 West Academy Building: Built 1838 (Richard Pettit, architect)
 Saint Joseph's Benevolent School (Lalor House, pre-1843)
 Monastery South Wing: Built 1857 (Richard Pettit, architect)
 Main Academy Building: Built 1872 (Norris G. Starkweather, architect)
 Wash House (1891)
 Fennessy Hall (1923)
 Gymnasium (1934)
 Cabin
Godey Lime Kilns (Washington Lime Kilns)
Rock Creek & Potomac Parkway at 27th & L Streets, NW
Remains of manufacturing business established by William H. Godey; built in 
1864, in operation until 1908; originally included 4 wood-fired ovens for making 
lime and plaster, using limestone shipped via the C&O Canal from quarries near 
Harper's Ferry; DC designation 5/22/73, NR listing 11/2/73; within Rock Creek & 
Potomac Parkway; US ownership
Thomas Sim Lee Corner
96
3001-3011 M Street, NW
DC listing 11/8/64; within Georgetown HD
Loughborough-Patterson House (Junior League of Washington)
3041 M Street, NW
Built 1801-06; DC listing 11/8/64; within Georgetown HD
John Lutz House (Aged Woman's Home)
1255 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Built c. 1750; additions 1870 and 1872; DC listing 11/8/64; in Georgetown HD
From the Historic Preservation Division of the D.C. Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs.
HD ? Historic District
NR ? National Register
NW ? Northwest 
97
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(2000).  Stephen Holl Sarphatistraat Offices.  GA Document.  n. 63: 38. 
Beauchamp, Tanya Edwards.  (1998). Georgetown Historic District Brochure. 
Georgetown Heritage Trust.  Washington, D.C.  
C & O Canal Association Website. http://www.candocanal.org/
Calvino, Italo. (     ).  Invisible Cities.
Camden Market Website. http://www.camdenlock.net/canmarket/index.html
Capital Crescent Trail Website.  http://www.cctrail.org/
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Park Website. http://www.nps.gov/choh/
Cotelo, Victor Lopez.  Vaqueria Carme de Abaixo.  Revista do Colexio Oficial de 
Arqutiectos de Galicia.  p. 56. 
Dawson, Layla.  (2002, January).  Hanseatic Restoration.  Architectural Review. v. 211 
n. 1259: 34.
Ecker, Grace Dunlop.  (1951).  A Portrait of Old George Town.  Richmond, Virginia: 
The Dietz Press, Inc. 
Ewan, Rebecca Fish. (2002, April).  Creating a ?There? There.  Landscape Architecture. 
p. 85.
Gandel, Cathie.  (2000).  Jon Jerde Designing the Spaces Between in Japan.  Pasadena, 
California: Navigator Press.
Georgetown Planning Group.  (1975, January 15).  Georgetown Waterfront Area Study.  
Recommended Development Plan and Program.  For The National Capital 
Planning Commission District of Columbia Department of Highways and Traffic.
Georgetown University Website. http://www.georgetown.edu/ 
98
Glassie, Henry.  (2000).  Vernacular Architecture. Philadelphia: Material Culture.
Hahn, Captain Thomas F.  (1980).  The C & O Canal Boatmen, 1892-1924. 
Shepherdstown, West Virginia: The American Canal & Transportation Center.  
Hammatt, Heather.  (2002, January).  Going with the Flow.  Landscape Architecture.  
p.73.
Harris, Robert.  (1969).  Canals and Their Architecture.  London: Hugh Evely n Limited.
Heller, Dan Website http://www.danheller.com/london-butlerswharf.html
Historic Preservation Division of the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory 
Affairs website.
Jacobs, Jane. (1960).  Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Lewis, Peirce F.  (1979).  Axioms for Reading the Landscape: Some Guides to the 
American Scene.  In Meinig, ed. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: 
Geographical Essays.  New York: Oxford University Press.  p. 11-32.
Library of Congress Website http://memory.loc.gov/
London Website http://www.london-se1.co.uk/areas/butlers.html
Lowenthal, David and Binney, Marcus.  (1981).  Our Past Before Us: Why Do We Save 
It?  London: Temple Smith.
Lowenthal, David. (1985).  The Past is a Foreign Country.  New York: Cambridge 
University Press.
Mansfield, Howard. (2000).  The Same Ax, Twice.  Restoration and Renewal in a 
Throwaway Age.  Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England.
Martin, Frank Edgerton.  (2001, February).  Making the River Connection.  Landscape 
Architecture.  p. 62.
99
Mays, Vernon.  (2001, March).  A Walk Through Time.  Landscape Architecture. p. 59.
Moore, Arthur Cotton. (1998).  The Powers of Preservation: New Life for Urban Historic 
Places. Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Website.   http://nndc.noaa.gov
National Park Service Website.  http://www.nps.gov
Rumsey, David, Website.  http://www.davidrumsey.com/japan/
Smith, Kathryn Schneider.  (1989).  Port Town to Urban Neighborhood: The Georgetown 
Waterfront of Washington, D.C.  1880-1920.  Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt 
Publishing Company.
Stephenson, Roger. (1992, September). Warehouse for the Software Age. The Architects? 
Journal. p. 36. 
Wallace, Mike.  (1996).  Mickey Mouse Architecture and Other Essays on American 
Memory.  Philadelphia, Temple University Press. pp.177-246.
Washington Biking Association Website.  http://www.bikewashington.org/canal/
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Website.  http://www.wmata.com/
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/
http://www.afrigeneas.com/
http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/