September 5, 2006
Mediocre Massachusetts Avenue
Ouch.
For anyone who recently moved into one of the many apartment buildings rising along Massachusetts Avenue between Mt. Vernon Square and Chinatown and read the Post yesterday, it may have been a bit of a shock to find the city's newspaper of record heaping criticism on the developments. In an article gracing the front page of the Style section and titled "The Mediocre Mile," Post writer Philip Kennicott left little debate over what he thought of the many new residential buildings:
So what do these new buildings look like? They're big, and more often than not they're brick, or, rather, clad with a brick facing that gives them a shallow skin of pink or red or dun-colored hues. Many of them take advantage of a D.C. zoning quirk that allows residential buildings to extend bays or other protrusions beyond the property line, and so they mimic, in a tall, distended way, the street-scape of the city's historic neighborhoods. They also push up to the maximum heights allowed by the city, and out to the farthest reach of their allowable space. They're block-fillers and often very drab. And many of them feel as if they could just as well be in Ballston -- or South Florida.He continues, critiquing not only the structures, but indirectly offering an opinion on the people living within them:
Politically and economically this is an urban success story. But look at the details of these buildings and they don't seem very urban at all. Yes, many of them have street-level retail -- and the chain stores are moving in. And yes, these buildings will bring thousands of new residents to a once-empty area. But they also have an inexorable thrust upward, to rooftop pools and running tracks and common areas that give their denizens a view of the city from a 100 feet up, rather than an immersion in it.We can't lie and say we don't somewhat agree. The area is no doubt better than what it was a few years ago, when not much lined the sides of Massachusetts Avenue from Union Station to beyond the new Convention Center. But much like the newly revitalized area of Chinatown, there isn't much life to the buildings that have popped up. They're uniform, sterile, and removed from the pulse of city life. Then again, we see the obvious benefit. They attract well-to-do workers who no doubt contribute to the city's tax base and likely take little by way of city services.
Since the Post didn't offer readers the chance to critique or compliment Kennicott's piece, we will. So we ask -- Massachusetts Avenue, mediocre or marvelous?
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Well, the stretch of Massachusetts Avenue extending Dupont Circle to Thomas Circle is filled with unique, urban architecture. The stretch of Massachusetts Avenue from the Convention Center to H Street mimics the architecture found all to common in the D.C. suburbs. Accordingly, suburbanites from the DC suburbs are flocking to these mediocre structures, and a lot of them have no qualms with the architecture as it resembles most likely what they are used to anyway in the 'burbs.
The one exception is the 400 Mass Avenue condo building which has an innovative design and quality. I rate it an "A". The new DuMont condos on Massachusetts Avenue should add another architectural winner to the streetscape when it is completed in 2008.
The Sonata ("rating: D"), the Meridian at Gallery Place apartments ("rating: D"), and Massachusetts Court apartments ("rating: C-")are all duds. No matter what, people are still moving in and adding to the D.C. population, so we should not complain too much. We have great architecture in so many other parts of the city to enjoy!
A large majority of these new building are designed by pretty much the same architectural firms. We need more architectural diversity instead of the same ole', same ole'.
Driving Rt. 50 out to Fairfax yesterday, I saw a bunch of the under-construction condos that are so frequently bashed here. While these structures are certainly not ideal, I feel that they're better than nothing, and certainly better than sprawl development. However, they do seem to lack... something. Maybe it's just that modern architecture has been sucked dry by value-engineering? I'm certainly sick of brick veneer..
I guess one question to the condo-haters is: how would you rather see the space used? Is it just the design of the buildings that grinds your gears? Or is there something deeper?
In a similar vein, how can these types of developments be prevented? As long as the buildings meet all of the code and zoning requirements, I can't see any reason to deny permits. I assume people are actually buying these places (although some here have mentioned a 'condo glut' in Arlington). The Post piece goes into the various bureaucratic boards that apparently have no authority. Is the solution another set of red tape?
The same thing goes for chain retail. It's been said in the past that rents are too high for independent stores to keep up. So what's the solution? We can't just ban chain stores or subsidize local business.. The fact that retail is included in these developments is still a good thing, even if it is ultimately chains that move in. Living in SW where there is almost no retail, I can tell you that I'd welcome anything. Even a goddamn Starbucks, if that's what it takes. At least I'd have somewhere to get bad coffee on the weekends.
As for the Post piece, I don't think I agree with the premise that just because a condo has a gym or roof lounge, the residents will hole themselves up and never go out. The article says "That doesn't mean the people who move in will choose a hermetic lifestyle, but the people selling or renting these spaces seem to believe that's what's appealing," with absolutely no attribution. Are they mind readers?
Having visted several cities this summer, I've been thinking about the DC height restriction. The Post piece touches on this. I personally think the restriction is responsible for some of the blandness, but as the piece says, if the restriction is relaxed, will it just mean taller blandness? One of the problems that I have with relaxing the restrictions is once it's done, it's done. We're not going to tear down buildings if the experiment fails.
What's an example of a large condo/apartment building in DC that isn't a blight or completely bland- the Chastleton? Most the ones that I can think of are pretty non-descript.
Then again, we see the obvious benefit. They attract well-to-do workers who no doubt contribute to the city's tax base and likely take little by way of city services.
This is the long pole in the tent for me. From a strictly financial standpoint this is good news for those of us who already live here. I think the buildings on that stretch of road are a little "blah", but I don't care because I don't have to live in them.
Does anyone know if any of those new buildings have "affordable" units in them?
City living usually implies a level of street energy that feels absent in this corridor. Walking through this area feels as deserted as walking around L'Enfant Plaza after working hours. With that much built in density you'd expect more bustle. I just assumed low occupancy rates, but maybe the residents live between work, play and rest without much inbetween. The location has many advantages, and aesthetics aside, it gets a few points for good urban planning.
I can see this article being written about a few more DC neighborhoods in the coming year or so. I'm secretly hoping they keep building until a glut exists, prices drop, and us non-profit types can afford homeownership at some point.
But they are seriously ugly, and I'm puzzled by who is buying these places, I've never met someone who has purchased a newly constructed condo unit.
Having lived around 2nd & F St. NW, I can say that the buildings are a far more welcome addition to the neighborhood than the parking lots that previously used the space. However, it is still a poor area to live in until more businesses and a grocery store move to the area.
Guess that realtors should stop calling it NoMa and start calling it MoMa (for Mediocre Massachusetts). But then, the Museum of Modern Art would probably sue.
We're losing Restaurant A.V. for this poop? I'll take mediocre italian food over this stuff any day. I may wake up with explosive diarrhea, but they'll still be stuck in a fugly building.
But people seem more than happy to spend top dollar on these places, and the gummint is more than happy to take their tax revenue. Barring a total real estate collapse and resultant crime sprees, I don't see either factor changing any time soon.
While I agree with some of the style critiques in that article, I take umbrage with his conflation of the aesthetics and function of these buildings. He is making two basic arguments: one is that these buildings are visually mediocre. Ok, I'll grant him that, to a degree. But then he sneeks in this second argument that the entire design (and clientele) of these buildings is somehow vaugely suburban and thus un-urban. While this may be true, he offers little compelling evidence for it. I think he just assumes that his readership agrees with him that no one really likes these condos dwellers and that they can't possibly be truly "urban". I just don't buy that. About the only evidence he offers for how un-urban these places are is that they have rooftop pools and a doorman. How are they otherwise isolated from their surroundings? Or rather, how are they any more isolated from their surroundings than any other large apartment building. He cites Jane Jacobs but doesn't also point out that one of her central arguments is that a vital city needs density. You need large apartment buildings to achieve density. He offers no evidence that these apartment dwellers are somehow not contributing their part to achieving density. He makes a vauge implication that somehow these people just camp out in their buildings and drive off to some ritzy restaurant, never adding to the pulse of the street. I think this is just his resentment talking, not legitimate journalism.
As for his critique of the buildings design, I agree somewhat that there is a mediocre style of building that has dominated apartment building for the last 15 years or so. And yes I think their should be more design review. But I'm not sure what he expects instead. Yes, they're somewhat vanilla. But he doesn't exactly lay out what he would do differently or who could afford to build such a building. I'm suspicous that given his druthers, he'd end up making a stretch of modern style buildings even more undesireable and "cold" by design rather than budget restrictions.
"Since the Post didn't offer readers the chance to critique or compliment Kennicott's piece, we will."
Sure they did: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006090301003
I think increasing density is pretty good all the way around, and getting people to live in that neighborhood is definitely an improvement. We can just hope that some lasting architecture will be created -- otherwise we'll have the same renovation spree as today when they looked at all the 70's and 80's cheap architecture and gutted and renovated. I love espeicially the ugly office building by P Street Bridge next to the gas station that was covered in brick and turned into $1 million dollar condos!
Also, can any one explain the 'pretty' parking lot near 9th and H ST NW (across from the Renaissance hotel, near the convention center and NY Ave). It was under construction for months, and when they finished -- it was a parking lot. Granted this is the nicest parking lot I've ever seen, with trees and a arch covered lot, but it seems a like a waste with all the demand for affordable housing in the area. Was this a land speculator that decided the time was not right so bailed on the building for the easy cash flow of a parking lot or what? And why couldn't they have just made it a *PARK* :(
I REALLY disagree with your assertion that, in Chinatown, "there isn't much life to the buildings that have popped up. They're uniform, sterile, and removed from the pulse of city life." In fact, I think the buildings there have a great deal of character, even if the Chinese references are less-than-authentic. This article really helps prove to me that art and architecture reviews are more a matter of opinion than anything else.
I agree Reid with your point about how Kennicott takes seemingly germane jabs at the people who lived there. i lived in the Meridian for 2 years a found it a great place to live. The building itself is no architectural wonder but i doubt most of the people choose to live there based on the facade. Being able to walk to work, walk to metro, walk to the gym, walk to the movies, walk to dozens of restaurants, walk to a Wizards game, walk to the smithsonian museums, walk to the mall, walk to jury duty, walk to the DMV, walk to Hecht's... well you see where I going with this. I think most of the people in those buildings are more than immersed in the city despite the workout rooms and rooftop pools - much more so than people in other parts of the district who get in their cars to drive to a nondescript parking lot, take the elevator up to a nondescript shopping mall and roam around inside an enclosed building before going back to their cars and driving home. I think the district's master plan for the area has taken shape very well and with the addition of the safeway will be one of the most desirable neighborhoods to live in if it isn't already.
There is no doubt that achieving this at the pace it has been on has come at the expense of some architectural detail and geographic marvel. But there are buildings that fill the void. 400 mass ave was a great addition to the block architecturally. The preservation of the 6th and I synagogue and the addition of the Dumont will also go a long way to help the neighborhood maintain some architectural street cred. And don't forget about the historic row houses along I, H and K streets that must be preserved and will hopefully soon be restored to their former glory. Also what about the national building museum or the old library in the mt. Vernon triangle as well as the House of Ruth building? The article seems to take a very narrow and selective approach to its critique, especially because it ignores the flip side of all the eyesores that were erected long before the current development in the hood took place such as the NPR building, the renaissance hotel and the monstrosity of building that abuts it, the secret service building, and the former budget hotel that used to disgrace that stretch of the avenue. Plus many of the bland buildings going up such as Meridian and 555 Mass are really done in the same vein as the bland yet functional buildings that went up along Connecticut ave in upper northwest decades ago, or on the SW waterfront, they aren't always great to look at but they provide high density and affordable housing (relatively speaking that is) in convenient, accessible locations.
There are beautiful and urbane and contemporary buildings going up in Chicago and San Francisco that have also energized the street life of the areas.
And yes, the mediocre design does reflect poorly on the inhabitants. These are buildings designed to appease the serious lack of aesthetic sense of the McMansion loving bleached-out suburban set. There was a previous version of this argument around these parts where DC was lauded for its taste. Taste is not style. And there is no sense of style.
We have moved into an era, again, where the aesthetics of DC are about as washed over as they can get. I don't think this bodes well for what the future of DC will hold. It certainly means that DC is going to be far behind the curve in the emerging areas of design and innovation-lead business culture. And so frankly, not only is this bad for Washington's artists and designers, I think its also bad for DC has a whole. It puts us about 10-20 years behind the vanguard of what a city needs to be. It reminds me of the old critique of Atlanta: it's the small town's idea of what a big city should be like.
DC could have been New York or Philadelphia or Chicago or San Francisco or London or Paris. Instead we've done a more become a more well do facsimile of Atlanta.
Blah.
The buildings may be a little 'blah', but so are the high-rises on 13th street between logan circle and thomas circle.
Everything considered, the Mass Ave buildings are much more palatable than those in Ballston or Crystal City.
I rent in one of the afore-mentioned allegedly horrible suburban monstrosities. So maybe these buildings don't scream DC as opposed to Bethesda or Arlington--what woudl do that for him? Columns like teh big fed govt agencies? Yeah, I'm sure that wouldn't cause him to scream that we're all elitist suburban snobs using the city. What else woudl he prefer? Tiny rowhouses like older apartment buildings in Georgetown or Capitol Hill? I agree, thsoe are lovely. And only house about a tenth of the residents of these buildings. If you want the city to be livable, you've got to get some critical mass. We're never goign to have the huge mass of people living downtown that you would find in New York or Chicago or a city without a height restriction. I'm not complaining about the height restriction-as my friends from those other cities have often commented, you can see the Capitol, Monument, Natl Cathedral and Basilica from neary any point in the city, AND you don't end up walking in dark, shadowed streets in sunlight just because you're between two skyscrapers.
But you have to face facts--because of the height restriction, developers are going to use as much space as they can. And sure, we have a rooftop pool and deck. How much did I use that pool this summer--once? When do I normally go up to the roof--when visitors are here, to show them the view. Where do I normally spend my time? In the city--in Chinatown and Capitol Hill and Northeast and Southeast at stores, restaurants, theatres and parks, and on the Metro. Supporting the economy and helping to make the city a vibrant, livable place.
Has the author looked at some of the craptastically ugly buildings built in the 70s and 80s? Is that what he would prefer? I would liked to have seen the author present even one suggestion or alternate idea.
Doh! Sorry for the typos. Spellcheck *is* your friend.
The noteworthy points of this argument have nothing to do with the fact that the new construction on Mass. Ave is mediocre. There is mediocre new construction all over this city.
I for one don't find the apartment buildings in D.C. to be the real source of its architectural interest. I find the row houses in neighborhoods like Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, and Columbia Heights to be much more interesting.
What is noteworthy about this article is the job that Kennicott does in outlining the economic forces that encourage mediocre architecture. Although there is no accounting for some people's taste, he makes it clear that much of the blame lies with the mechanisms the city has used to encourage new construction, and with the way it enforces its zoning and height restriction laws.
We can't change the folks who think that rows of 130-foot tall boxes with brick facades are fashionable. However, we can change the way that the city uses its rules and its money. That's where the real message lies here.
This sort of high density residential is springing up all over. The buildings are obviously intended to capture as much FAR/dollars-to-developers as possible. Their setback to height ratio is very low, causing them to loom over the sidewalks, which often seem encroached on as a result. The buildings offer few exterior urban amenities, such as courts, plazas or gardens, to attempt to engage the streetscape or draw their occupants down to street level. And, while these buildings do offer some street level retail, but it is generally of the anywhere USA-chain sort. It's no wonder the reviewer believes these structures could be in Ballston and speculates they will make suburbanites comfortable.
In all, these structures do very little to attempt to engage the streetscape or connect their occupants with the broader city. I predict, due to their insular, they will generally be filled by short-timers or out-of-District residents, rather than by people who participate in local affairs.
Surely the "suburban" ideal that Kennicot's condemning is not the people living in the suburbs, but the isolation that comes with the outer ring housing.
He goes on to criticize the developers for "selling or renting spaces" that seem designed to appeal to a "hermetic lifestyle" (but acknowledges that may not be the goal of the renters). In the suburbs, you drive to the gym, to the grocery, to a restaurant, to any retail, then drive home and park in the garage. Kennicott seems to be critizing a design style that encourages people to stay in their own building for gyms, for pools, for video rentals and possibly just to frequent the building's own street-level retail.
So Shelley's experience - an urban, pedestrian lifestyle - seems to be Kennicott's ideal, and he is primarily concerned that the isolation of suburban residents will creep into the heart of the city - that apartment living will be "'like people's houses' but 'with the security and so forth.'" I think it misses the mark to imagine that he finds suburban dwellers hopelessly provincial - there are far too many Post reporters who live in the suburbs to countenance that kind of criticism.
And Princess Xemina, I think he is more concerned with the suburbs in Howard or Loudoun counties than Arlington or Bethesda. Until recently, Arlington received high praise for their development strategies, and they have pursued what would seem to be Kennicott's ideal during the Columbia Pike revitalization process.
D, that parking lot near the Renaissance is the site of the old convention center. The construction you noticed was actually the destruction of the facility. I believe they imploded it in December '04.
The plans for the site include a mixed-use development, possibly even including a new library, but I don't believe anything has been finalized yet. Anyone know the latest? I guess the city just decided to use it as a parking lot in the interim.
Actually, it is more than just a parking lot. There is an art walk on the west side, and I saw a hardcourt volleyball tournament taking place there this weekend. Also, last Christmas they had a holiday market, which wasn't all that great, but it helped to fill a little of the dead space.
I think the Mass Ave. corridor could use a little more character, but it's a hell of a lot better than the transvestite prostitutes the buildings are displacing.
DC1974, I don’t see an ebb and flow. DC’s post-war apartment buildings have always been pretty drab. Well, I guess there’s the Watergate. Great street life there…
But aesthetics aside, I still don’t think he made a good case for how these buildings are suburbanizing the avenue. While he mentions their marketing, he doesn’t have any evidence that the buildings are in fact being used in this way or, more importantly, whether they’ll likely be used that way in 5-10 years time. I can understand why a building located there would be advertising itself as providing total service, because as of right now, there’s not much of a neighborhood infrastructure to provide those services. But as the density reaches a critical mass, those services will hopefully sprout there. I agree that some stock of old buildings are crucial to provide affordable and properly sized space for these services and I’m not confident the city is doing enough to secure them, but I don’t see how more stylish apartment buildings would be any better at providing that.
I am no soothesayer but I am know to be a big better and I would bet that the units at 400 mass ave will rise higher in value over the next five years than the row houses in columbia heights, cap hill, arlington or bethseda. the location rocks the bulding is highly livable and as the area develops it will become more desirable...so kennicott, Mr. Real Estate expert, you in want to make a bet? In terms of whats urban vs suburban I moved here from ny and specifically choose this area for its urban feel. Kennicott you can kiss my mediocre arse
WOW...the assumptions and stereotypes of your fellow neighbors and co-workers are making my head spin. From what I take, suburbanites (those who either on the other side of the river/district line or someone who doesn’t live in a multi unit property) must be scared, unoriginal and genetically predisposed to live in low density housing. I also take that most transient urban dwellers love isolation, are unoriginal and hate their community. Finally, most urbanites are city planners and local community activist who seek to rid their city of suburbanites or any other urban dwellers who don’t share their urban ideal….Funny thing is that most of this drivel is coming from born and raised suburbanite transplants.
I am no fan of copy and past architecture that has dominated the DC landscape, however as long as the demand for new and improved housing is high, developers will cut their cost and use their architects a little less. A drive up Connecticut Ave’s architecture is a great timeline of the different housing booms within the district over the years….we are just in middle of another.
For all the same reasons discussed by Kennicott, looking at postWWII architecture for better examples is going to be unsuccessful. Why? Because in that period, design shifted pretty strongly to modernism and around the car. Even NYC has a lot of junk from the same time period.
The issue isn't that some piece of junk or chain retail is better than nothing but to strive for greatness.
DC1974 has it right. Why should the choice be between comparing the city to Atlanta, Ballston (which in its second modern iteration is getting better) or the office parks along I-270 vs. something greater?
Design review should be required for a city where architecture, urban design, and history matter and comprise 3 of the five primary competitive advantages possessed by the city.
The one time I disagree with Octavio_dc is on MassCourt. I think that's a decent building. Sure it's brick and post-modern, but I like it. Would I have thought a vaguely art deco buildling like the Gregory in Portland might have worked better with the GAO building across the street? Yeh, maybe, but I still like it.
http://www.portlandground.com/archives/2006/04/11th_ave_view_to_south.php
It's funny because another land use activist is lobbying me to testify later in the month on the Comp Plan about not delaying approval. As this person said to me "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
But after mulling this over the weekend, and also reading Kennicott's piece, I had to get back to my own core competency of being uncompromising on advocating for quality in land use and transportation planning and the quality of the public space.
I can't testify in favor of the Comp. Plan as is. It's good. Better than the present plan. But it's not World Class. It's not great. I can't be true to myself and support mediocrity.
I agree with "They're removed from the pulse of city life [and]they attract...workers who...contribute to the city's tax base and likely take little by way of city services."
I find it annoying that the walk from the Metro to 400 Mass entails being asked for money, sworn at, and dodging loiterers. Not to mention unpleasant stenches.
Then once at 400 Mass, the most popular entrance is the one with the indoor dumpsters that create a "Dutch oven" of stench.
DC 1974 --
Are you serious? While it doesn't surprise me that you would complain yet again about how DC is screwing something up, I find your never ending hyperbole a tad much. First, NOMA as a neighborhood isn't finished -- not by a long shot. Many of the buildings being built will be mixed use with destination retail. Big stores like Safeway will be next to local shops like Pulp, Home Rule, Results, Logan/Glover/Tenley Hardware, etc. For god's sake, can't people like DC1974 (as well as the Post architecture critic) wait until most of the buildings are actually finished before complaining about the lack of urbane street life in the neighborhood.
What's more, the notion that DC will be "left behind" is even more laughable. DC is (and will remain) one of the top three destinations nationally (the other two being NYC and LA) for college grads because this region is a professional jobs machine. DC1974 I think it is finally time for you to stop whining and pack your bags and move back to some latte town on the West Coast.
"The one time I disagree with Octavio_dc is on MassCourt. I think that's a decent building. Sure it's brick and post-modern, but I like it. "
Hey Richard,
For the record, I like 400 Mass Avenue. Massachusetts Court is another complex. Hopefully, we are on the same sheet of music with this. Have a nice evening!
I encourage everyone to read this editorial from the Washington Post about 400 Mass Avenue and its architectural qualities:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55820-2004Oct22?language=printer
'Sup, sane jane? You must be from Upstate. There is no way you moved here from The City and think 400 Mass is the epitome of urban culture. Leaving aside the bland, cookie-cutter, this-could-be-any-suburb-in-America architecture, exactly what escapades do you get up to in your "neighborhood" that purportedly "rocks"?
Maybe you're like my sis, and think the Potomac McMansions are beautiful. At least she has the excuse of having just moved here from Texas.
But, from the rant, perhaps it's that you just bought one of those units? Congratulations. Seriously. I am "homeless" because I am waiting for the place I want. It's a hard choice, and if my situation didn't make it so attractive for me to wait, I might have bought a McUnit and consoled myself with the fact that it was just a first DC house.
I'd rant a little less if I were you, though. Columbia Heights and Capitol Hill are real neighborhoods with immense historical and cultural appeal (not to mention architecture). As for your speculative bet... I hate to break it to you, but this is a poor market for it (especially with condos).
It be interesting to track the rent/own ratio of these buildings over, say, the next 5 years.
The part of the Post article I found most frustrating was the almost complete lack of suggestions for how the architecture should be improved. There are more and better ideas on this thread than Kennicott mentioned in his whole long screed.
However, I'm highly suspicious of folks who think that "planning reviews" are the solution to market-driven aesthetic decisions. One sure way to make the housing market even more of a mess is to force investors to spend more on construction for strict aesthetic purposes. Remember, adding gardens, setbacks, etc., makes including "affordable" units that much more expensive and less likely.
There are some beautiful apartment buildings in DC, but nearly all were built before WWII. The economics of limestone or even limestone/brick facades just don't work anymore. There are also tradesman skill deficits and building schedule issues. Brick masons of today *cannot* replicate the gorgeous brickwork of the early 20th C because they're not trained for it. And everybody can just forget about finding talented stone masons, they don't exist at all in any numbers to support a major construction project. Plus, the time it takes to execute complicated hand work tends to preclude this activity in all but the most high-end projects.
In all honesty, while I share many of the concerns about the new construction on Mass Ave (1010 Mass is, in my opinion, a visual atrocity on par with the old Convention Center) at least it includes some degree of variety. My real nightmare is seeing Mass Ave become like the row of big brick boxes along K street in G-town. Try driving along the Whitehurst sometime if you want to see blah...and that Ritz Carlton building built around the smokestack is *brand new*!
Finally, as an aside, I think that if the height restriction is ever lifted, many of these structures are built in a way to allow for upward expansion and/or quick facade facelifts that could change their appearances dramatically. However, nobody's holding their breath for that.
Since I actually live in Mass Court (300 Mass) which someone above rated a C-, I would argue they clearly haven't even been in the building. What might seem drab on the outside actually has a very modern feel on the inside. The lobby is pretty awesome and the loft side that faces 4th Street is pretty architecturally unique and not something you'd see often in Ballston. The apartment side facing Mass I might argue isn't stunning in any particular way, but it isn't really drab either. It's functional. And the integration of the cornerstone building fits pretty well. Considering it sits beside the GAO office which is about as boring as it gets, it isn't terrible. The Meridian I think is boring as hell and the Sonata appears to rival in its drabness. In any case, I haven't seen too many large apartment buildings in DC that are awe inspiring. Throwing a bunch of glass or metal doesn't make a building anything special if it's builty poorly, which is a huge criticism of many of the newer stunning buildings in DC. I'd rather have functional and stable than buy a condo in a building that is going to have to be torn down in 20 years.
Of course, the same thing is happening with all the bland high-density development next to the Navy Yard. It may not be as visible as the Mass Ave stretch right now, but after the new South Capitol St corridor comes in you might occasionally drive through there and think, "am I in Ballston?"
But all it takes is a high quality restaurant looking for a new, dramatic space, a couple of pubs, and some interesting ethnic fare (ah, if only that could be in the zoning rules), and all of a sudden bland development is pretty tolerable and feels more like a neighborhood because people will be on the streets.
I second the notion that DC1974 pack his bags and head back to the west coast. Hell, I'll buy his plane ticket and set him up w/ first month's rent.
Random addenda:
The Boston House @ 17th and Mass is an example of a spec-built (the builder got permits and started construction before whether it decided whether the finished product was to be office or housing) early modern (1950) high density structure- it was last year added by fiat to the Mass Ave historic district- preserving its architecture for what will seem to some observers like an eternity. How will these new buildings-DC's latest foray into high density residential- age?
The new condos at what used to be Congressional Quarterly (Dunbarton Place) recently asked the P St businesses to change their business models because their developer (Monument Realty- also doing construction around the ballpark) didn't see fit to install adequate sound-proofing. A few years back, so did the Adams Morgan Loft and Penn Quarter residents. You can expect the eventual owners of the new condos on Jefferson Pl to do the same. With interest in modern high density residential comes an important caution- kick the tires- you're liable for your own purchases.
dear britton,
"And the integration of the cornerstone building fits pretty well." ... are you kidding me? i live in masscourt too, and i think its absolutely atrocious. i mean, the LEAST they could do was pull the window lines over. all the architects did was keep the facade and build around it. hardly architecturally stimulating or well-thought out, or "fitting." i will say that it was nice that they attempted to keep it, but the lack of preservation of the INTEGRITY of the cornerstone building really disapoints me. i enjoy the amentities of masscourt, and i think the lofts are pretty flippin sweet, but honey puh-lease, the exterior facade gets a thumbs down.
Britton,
I am sure that the interiors are modern and comfortable. However, the Washington Post article is focusing on the exterior achitecture of the buildings on Massachusetts Avenue. So, that is what my rating is based on. I could not, in good faith, live in these architecturally depressed buildings.
Ok, so since the article does not make any dramatic suggestions on a solution to improve architectural quality, I will do it.
Maybe DC should add more investment in subsidizing/encouraging more unique exterior designs for these monstrosities. DC already has a facade improvement program for the Main Streets initiative. All they need is to expand the program. There are also many other ways to finance this. And, yes D.C. does have the resources to do this. The D.C. Office of Planning is already recommending the city offer $30 million in tax breakss for development in the NoMa area to encourage more retail and more residential. The city needs to expand tax breaks for architectural innovation. It only takes a couple million per development to dramatically improve architectural quality. If D.C. is willing to extend tax breaks for more retail and more housing, then D.C. should be willing to extend tax breaks to get better quality design. History would look favorably on this course of action. Architectural quality is one of D.C.'s competitive advantages, and people will appreciate and admire this in the long run.
Well, finally someone has written an article worth a lot of conversation!
Come on people, DC doesn't care about neighborhoods and people, they only care about the money and the benefits from it. Take a look at Disney China (ahem) I mean Chinatown. My mother (who is from Hong Kong) finds DC's Chinatown a joke on Asian culture. A friend of mine passed a joke that Hong Kong should build an "America Town" with a McDonald's and Wendy's on every corner and dressed for Christmas year round... all while playing Brittney Spears nonstop.
Anyway, DC doesn't care about its people, its neighborhoods, its roads, its sidewalk closures, nothing. If you seem to think that DC actually does--you're just delusional (or just too gay to function in any other city). Sure, we have a mayor that swears up and down that he cares; we also have a president thing that does also.
In DC's future, one can expect more "overpriced shitty (and dull) condos" along with "overpriced shitty fusion restaurants" oh, and not to mention "the ignorant yuppies that pay the high prices for shit."
On the street life side, I don't agree with the idea that these buildings will kill street life. I live in a horrific & drab building on Massachusetts Avenue, and since the poor building's opening I've seen many more people walking about--I also forced DDOT to restripe the crosswalk box (one of the first new zebra striped ones in DC!)
Anyway, DC is indeed getting to be a suburban wasteland--New York City is also experiencing a very slight tingle of that as well. The problem is the upper crust suburbanites that are roaching into the urban area with suburban minds... and sometimes Republican agendas!!!
Shit, time to leave and go to Dubai!
"or just too gay to function in any other city"
Are you 12 years old? No? Ah, just ignorant.
"or just too gay to function in any other city"
Are you 12 years old? No? Ah, just ignorant.
i think what you are all missing is the fact that these buildings are being built by developers. they dont care about architectural integrity. they just care about money and the way to do that is to provide amentities and nice-looking lobby and maximize the zoning envelope of each lot. yes, the condos extend to the maximum height. yes, they stretch out as far as they can. duh. average joe schmoe is not going to stand on mass ave and look west and critique the window lines. atleast esocoff didnt design a row of The Judiciary Houses. now THAT would have been an atrocity. As another note, these are residences, not monuments. If every building in the district is monumental, then nothing is monumental. Architects shouldn't be expected to design a new architecture every Monday morning. And lastly, i'd rather see these condos over Frank Gehry's metal tissue paper addition to the Corcoran. VOMIT.
But all it takes is a high quality restaurant looking for a new, dramatic space, a couple of pubs, and some interesting ethnic fare (ah, if only that could be in the zoning rules), and all of a sudden bland development is pretty tolerable and feels more like a neighborhood because people will be on the streets.
Well put. Even though I'm not a big fan of some of the new buildings and I do bemoan the loss of places like DC Space and the old 9:30 Club, that part of town has been revitalized in the last five years. The streets around the MCI Center in the SoMA area used to be deserted when you walked out of Bullets game at 10pm, now it looks like freaking Times Square down there.
It's easy to sit back and make supercilious remarks about chain stores while looking down my nose, but truthfully we should probably consider ourselves at least a little bit lucky that we're bitching about Legal Seafood and Urban Outfitters rather than Red Lobster and Sears.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Bullets never played in the MCI Center -- they played in the now defunct Capitol Center in Landover, MD.
Since when is Philip Kennicott an expert on architecture and urban planning? Last time I checked, he was some kid from the very non-urban upstate New York, who wrote reviews on classical music.
Fact checker - you're correct, I thought Lez Boulez had played one season at MCI, but I was mistaken.
To user with username "homophobe" --
Well, I'm so sorry that offended you. Just scoot on down to your local Starbucks and buy some brown colored water with varying temperatures... you should be feeling better in no time!
I like McMansions. Never been stabbed in front of my brick veneered slice-o-the-dream.
Just lie some morning and listen to the Channel 4 news with your eyes closed. DC is a f***ing war zone. The NYC news sounds nothing like that.
Try being able to walk around a "feel" safe at night, that's the true test of a city. You can run all over NYC, Chicago...uh, LA, i guess...
...but DC, no. The crime is the elephant in the room for this city.
The Most Interesting Building in the Area is not on Massachussetts Avenue at all but at DC's own version of Times Square - ie 7th and H. It's the Residences at Gallery Place. Architectonica did a great job in creating a building that is really a work of art that combines offices, residences and commercial shopping. It is also a much better location than the buildings on Massachussetts Avenue because it sits right above the Metro. The Downtown for Chinatown and Penn Quarter really is Gallery Place.
"You can run all over NYC, Chicago...uh, LA, i guess..."
And not worry about crime? Only a person who has never lived in any of those cities AND/OR lives in a po'dunk place like Gainesville would believe that.
I live at 8th and H, NE. This city isn't any more dangerous or crime-ridden, overall, than any other city of the same size. Crime emergency not withstanding. However, since you feel that way, please stay out in the burbs in your McMansion. It makes the city much nicer for us all.
"I live at 8th and H, NE. This city isn't any more dangerous or crime-ridden, overall, than any other city of the same size. Crime emergency not withstanding. However, since you feel that way, please stay out in the burbs in your McMansion. It makes the city much nicer for us "
I love it, an apologist for crime. MAUVAIZ FOI indeed.