DCist: Third Church Focused on Rights, Not Options

IMGoph

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:07:56 -0500

aw christ, just nuke the thing.

stmove

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:42:21 -0500

I think most people, exercising common sense, would find the effort to "save" the building infuriating for the simple reason that the same organization which built it- should be able to take it down. It is their design, their building, from cradle to grave. It seems that it might be a different story if the church occupied a historic building when they moved onto the lot, understanding all that entails. But the fact that the HPB is trying to stop someone from razing a building they themselves erected, of no previous historic nature, is beyond infuriating. So apparently here under the rule of the HPB as a DC resident we run the risk of building something that someone else likes more than us (the patron and co-designer perhaps) so they could then stop us from taking down our own buildings in the future? Apparently the risk is that if you build something remarkable enough, you are giving up future control of your land, so you better build em shitty (keep that in mind). The church will surely learn the lesson well, and when the finally win, build a strip mall, of course that will be to no avail, the HPB will fight it, and then in 30 years preserve it. The building has no provenance before the church. They should be able to do what they want. Besides, we all know that if someone tried to build something like this today- the HPB would shut it down. They would have then, if they were around, and if they were not such Pei starf*ckers. Not that it matters, but I happen to admire that building, and I think it is a nice strange addition to DC, and I generally support H.Pres., but living in a historic district I have seen how subjective and asinine the practice of it tends to be.

downtown rez

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:30:39 -0500

"...it's a greater Pei example..." It's not a Pei design. Regardless of what the original landmark application sloppily stated. That building is the fugliest blight in the entire greater 16th Street historic district.

cyrinaldi

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:28:09 -0500

Agreed, HCE. The Watergate is beastly.

HCE

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:27:09 -0500

Fine, if we're going to start tearing down buildings that are architecturally or historically significant and ugly, can we start with the Watergate complex? Talk about drab and shitty! I'm sure that prime piece of real estate could be put to better use than a run-down residential hotel for really old rich people.

alewis

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:32:19 -0500

"So the building's importance is "concrete," while its ugliness is subjective, huh?" Here here. That church should be torn down. It's no more "historic" than any other brutalist building *cough* J. Edgar Hoover Building *cough*. It seems to fly in the face of due process rights that 7 people can determine how you may use your property. And, it seems like if property is going to be assumed by the government for a public purpose (i.e. preserving architecture) then the city should have to provide just compensation to the church in order to do so. I think that's in the Constitution somewhere.

NCinDC

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:28:14 -0500

ummm, i second the bathhouse suggestion

monkeyrotica

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:36:35 -0500

Waitaminit. You mean that isn't the bunker where Hitler and Eva Braun died? WTF? I'm kinda changing my opinion of brutalism. I used to hate the school like no other, but now, I see the attraction. No architectural school, or artistic movement, exists in a vacuum. There were plenty of people railing against georgian architecture, and Second Empire, and even colonial. Brutalism sucks/rules depending on how you feel about everything else in the neighborhood. That said, If they're dead set on keeping the building up, just slap some tinted glass and some stainless accents and it would be indistinguishable from any fug office cube downtown. And if they want to tear it down, make sure they sow salt so no other church ever grows there again. And as an associate member of the First Church of Hillman (Irredeemable), Our Lady of Perpetual Motion, I think the joint would make a kickass gay bathhouse. Imminent domain the place and hand it over to the guys who owned The Follies. The only real competition in the area is Green Lantern and I'd hardly call that joint "bumpin."

naalex

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:22:46 -0500

Is it just me, or is this building not that ugly? Sure, Brutalism is a much maligned architectural style these days. And this dislike is especially strong in DC where the plethora of concrete boxes combined with the city's restrictive regulations and economic environment have contributed towards many an ugly downtown block. But this church seems to be one of the better examples of Brutalism in the city. It's compact and not filling up an entire square block with its drab exterior and monotony. It's not some hybrid of office building functionality and once-thoughtful design. It's all design. And the building's forceful impact strikes immediately when you see it for the first time. When all the other ugly modernist structures in the city have been replaced with soon-to-be-boring all-glass hulks, this church's design will regain its relevance. (Although its worshipers may still be pissed as hell).

Reid

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:33:13 -0500

"And until fall of this year, the church itself praised the award-winning architecture on its Web site and in church literature." Yeah, it's totally weird that a church that is suffering low membership wouldn't make it clear on their website that their building is a drab piece of sh*t! Bizarre! You alternate between making subjective judgments and critizing others for making subjective decisions that you disagree with. The normal way out of that dillema is to strive to set up objective measures to determine a building's "significance". This has many problems, particularly for the brutalist style. First of all, you're still making subjective judgments ("it's a greater Pei example"). Second, it assumes that the overall style is worthy. McMansion is a style. It is in my opinion a "lesser" style. To the extent we ever start protecting the "McMansion" style, it ought to be very few homes that we protect. Similarly, I think that brutalism is a lesser style for the very reason that it is inherently flawed (at least in the urban context, I give it more slack in a less dense context). I think that being a great brutalist building is not the same as being a great Queen Anne. Besides, this church is not a great brutalist building anyway. As you can see, I'm fine with subjective judgments. I just think that the people making the subjective judgments need to be the type of people that know crap when they see it. I personally don't think the HRPB is staffed by people who can recognize an architectural and urban planning mistake when they see it. For an architecture professional to accept that architecture as a whole took a major wrong turn in the middle of the 20th century is to admit that your entire career is a mistake. For that reason it's not surprising that most architectural "experts" defend Brutalism. But for the grace of HRPB goes their career...

cyrinaldi

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:12:17 -0500

I really like this building. Brutalist architecture has traits that juxtapose its weighty-feeling exterior to its spartan interior, which often consists of exposed internal structural elements, including pipes and wires (when not dangerous, and perhaps when they are, too). It's elegant in a rough industrial way. And I'm not sure I've even been in such a building in DC, so I'm supposing that's why they want to preserve this one? Too bad it's a church and not a design school...

MrTinDC

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:00:33 -0500

When the concrete bunker was built, with absolutely no regard for aesthetics, the neighborhood context, or the street life and pedestrian scale, several historic buildings were demolished, ones that were far better looking, fit better on the site, and had a much higher degree of craftmanship. A true historic preservationist, and I consider myself one, would applaud the destruction of the church as a pointed rebuke to the earlier demolition of truly worthy buildings. It would be satisfying to see the church reduced to rubble, and hopefully something better built on the site. It wouldn't be hard - I could draw something on a napkin that would look and fit better there. The historic preservationists in DC always seem to be fighting the wrong battles, to save the drab Giant on Wisconsin Ave, this ugly church, the MLK Librray. I mean, if everything is historic, then nothing is historic. Someone has to draw a line somewhere. Where were these people when the Fox Theater was gutted, the Heurich Brewery was demolished, and the entire SW quadrant of the city was bulldozed?

ratnerstar

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:47:10 -0500

Nevertheless, the building itself has a concrete place in architectural history, and the argument that it is self-evidently ugly is totally subjective and beside the point. (Who decides what's gorgeous? Fisher? Fenty? Who cares?) So the building's importance is "concrete," while its ugliness is subjective, huh? And yet if you lined up District residents and asked them to look at it, I'm willing to bet a large majority could identify it as "ugly" while only a slim few might pick up on its place in architectural history. In general, I'm sympathetic to the preservationist argument. But the smugness is a bit much. Let's not forget that the church is a real thing, owned and used by real people, who have a real stake in what happens to it. I'd be more willing to entertain your historical and architectural abstractions if you weren't so dismissive of the practical impact your theories have on people's lives.

cminus

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:32:56 -0500

*Ist blog posts through the ages: DCist, November 29, 2008: Why should the church compromise when it is so clearly obvious that the building is horribly ugly [...]? Yet at one point in the very recent past the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, thought that a Brutalist sanctuary was attractive enough to build. And once they made the decision to go there, they entered into an important architectural lineage. From Gothamist, June 19, 1983: "Why should John Travolta continue to wear polyester disco suits when it is so clearly obvious that these clothes are horribly ugly? Yet at one point in the very recent past Travolta thought that leisure suits were attractive enough to wear. And once he made the decision to go there, he entered into an important fashion lineage." From Phillyist, July 3, 1776: Why should the Continental Congress compromise when it is so clearly obvious that King George is ruling as a tyrant [...]? Yet at one point in the very recent past the members of the Continental Congress thought that the reign of King George was attractive enough to levy troops on his behalf to fight the French. And once they made the decision to go there, they entered into an important dynastic lineage." From Romaist, December 10, 475: "Why should Emperor Romulus Augustulus compromise when it is so clearly obvious that the Scirii mercenaries are horribly unreliable [...]? Yet at one point in the very recent past the Emperor thought that that Odoacer was attractive enough to make a general. And once they made the decision to go there, they entered into an important military lineage."

Mike Licht

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:19:39 -0500

Can't the US Coast Guard declare this eyesore a hazard to aesthetic navigation and demolish it?

adamsmorgan

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:39:02 -0500

Fisher is as rabidly anti-preservation as the HPRB is pro-preservation. It would be nice if there was a better sense of balance in this town over preservation. It's not a horrible thing as the anti-preservations like to paint it and it's definitely got drawbacks that the pro-preservations like to not talk about.

Hillman

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:33:41 -0500

If they get to claim first amendment rights here then every single one of us should have our homes declared a church. DC Zoning laws practically guarantee you can create a church in any zoning. Then we can do pretty much anything we want with our property, threatening to sue if challenged. Oh, and we can just ignore that real estate tax bill also, what with our newfound religious exemption. Not to say that this isn't an ugly building and they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want. But by very definition a claim of religious first amendment exemption is built on 'special rights' afforded only to religions.

Deep

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:32:37 -0500

I wondered why the bells stopped ringing in the morning. Now I now.