WTOP Report Provokes Anger Among Area Cyclists
Goodbye Fixie, Hello Tweed!
Committee Approves Same-Sex Marriage Bill
Burger-pocalypse at BGR
D.C. Area Pedestrian Safety Could Be Worse
Marc Fisher and David Alpert both get a yuk from the following exchange between U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson and D.C. Assistant Attorney General Leah Taylor, which took place last week during a hearing that all but decided the fate of the controversial Third Church of Christ, Scientist:
"Have you seen the church?" Judge Robertson asked . . . "Yes, your honor," she replied.Not exactly funny ha ha to architectural preservationists. It will come as no great surprise, then, that Judge Robertson ruled that if Office of Planning Director Harriet Tregoning does not rule for the Church in the administrative appeal to be allowed to raze the building, Robertson would overrule the Metropolitan Baptist Church vs. D.C. DCRA case that decided that landmarking a church does not place a special burden on religious organizations. Which would be an awful precedent, in terms of future preservation efforts."Been down there? Walked around? Seen the building?" he continued. "Yes, your honor," she replied.
"Gone inside?" he asked. "No, your honor," she replied.
"Couldn't find the door, could you?" he shot back with a gleam in his eye and a wicked smile.
I get Robertson's joke. It's too bad that he doesn't get the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, building. To complain that a building with this design isn't accessible is a bit like complaining that a sailboat doesn't have a motor.
Inaccessibility is one of the features of the building, which former Post critic Benjamin Forgey called "inward looking." It's a difficult structure, compared to a building that everyone believes is pretty whose front door is right smack there front and center. Which is why Alpert is wrong to say that the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, is a bad case for preservation -- it's in a sense the very best case for preservation, because the building reflects an idea that is strongly appreciated by a minority of people in the city. The National Cathedral, by point of contrast, is a bad case for preservation, because no one wants to tear it down.
If it's true as seems likely the case that the Church will soon fire up the wrecking balls, bulldozers, and whatever else it will need to bring down its concrete bunker, it's worth thinking about the idea that the city will gain and what it will lose. And it's certainly true that the downtown location is valuable, as Ryan Avent and Tom Lee noted in two different takes on the issue for DCist last month. Virtually any other building on the same parcel will exploit that value more efficiently. But land scarcity (that is, the height restriction) is hardly an argument for throwing our hands up in the air and letting the market alone decide what ideas are worth preserving and what aren't. That framework, after all, informed the effort by Congress in 1953 to replace a tacky, old Washington building with a parking lot. Had preservationists not won that important early victory, Washingtonians would not have the Old Patent Office, which they have arguably come around on.
If (as seems likely the case) the Church soon fires up the wrecking balls, bulldozers, and whatever else you need to bring down its concrete bunker, it's worth thinking about what, if anything, the city will lose. To this writer's mind, the building has always reflected a sense that the search for God is dark, difficult, isolating, and ultimately lonely. Whatever else it is, the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, building is itself a rare and lonely thing, both in the context of modernist buildings in D.C. and Brutalist buildings everywhere.
But the precedent for preserving buildings used by religious institutions will remain intact, even if this building will not, and for preservationists, that's the more important thing to save.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Is it Saturday?
Why are we getting opinion posts labeled as "news?"
That hideous church should have never been built in the first place. The time to pull out all the stops for historic preservation of the site was when the attractive pre-WWII architecture there was torn down to make way for the current monstrosity. To evoke high and mighty ideals of historic preservation at this point is closing the barn door after the cows have escaped. The modernist architects who would have replaced our entire rich urban fabric of historic buildings with soulless, windowless bunkers should be punished, not rewarded, by posterity. Next to go should be the FBI building...
Putting aside the issue of what precedent this ruling will create for historic preservation, I have a different take on historic preservation's value. Its value is not in protecting buildings that the public hates, but protecting buildings that the public appreciates but the owner doesn't.
This post argues that preservation isn't about protecting the "National Cathedral" because no one would tear that down, but I think that argument is naive. One can quickly think of great buildings that should never have been torn down, but were destroyed for the sake of capitalist expediency. For example, that's what happened to the old Penn Station in New York, and it's what almost happened to Grand Central. We have historic preservation to protect buildings that people love.
When we protect a building only because some experts say it is architecturally noteworthy, what we're really doing is saying that the experts' opinions are more important than the public's. And what's more, the public is subjected to this building, which invades the public space. In the case of this particular church, as a statement it is not just ugly but is actively hostile to its public. In essence, to insist on this church's preservation is basically allowing experts to inflict a hostile building to its public.
The tricky business of preserving historic buildings is that these buildings are not sitting in a museum where they won't bother anyone. They were built to be part of the public and operate in the public, and as such we have to live with them. To force buildings on the public that the public doesn't want is like imprisoning the public in a museum.
Isn't the building's landmarked status some indication that this is a building that the public appreciates on some level? Somebody had to apply for landmark status, after all.
Likewise, from the District's perspective, do you back down from your preservation law just because it is affecting a religious institution? Or do you apply it equally, regardless? (Constitutionally, the latter is theoretically required.)
I'm not a fan of the building, but I'm even less a fan of Judge Robertson's insinuation. Basically, he is suggesting religious institutions to get a bye on the preservation laws that everyone else is subject to. Worse, he suggests that his reason for doing so is that landmarking is somehow more burdensome to religious institutions than any other institution. Unfortunately, but no doubt intentionally, RLUIPA and RFRA are laws that have been crafted vaguely enough that they could very well be used as tools to favor religious institutions (what is an "undue burden," after all?).
Oddly, this favoritism for religious institutions is exactly the opposite of what the first and second amendments have come to stand for. Even as interpreted by the Department of Justice, RLUIPA and RFRA (which really should only give effect to the Bill of Rights) only invalidate laws that disfavor religious institutions merely because they are religious.
It is a stretch, at best, to say that District's historic preservation laws target religious institutions.
Nonetheless, Judge Robinson seems to be saying that, merely because this church is a religious institution, it should not be burdened by the preservation laws everyone else is subject to. That kind of favoritism for religious institutions over everyone else should make every American nervous.
It is possible that Judge Robertson's threat (that he would unravel the District's preservation law) is tough talk to get the District to giving up on a case that would seem to do more harm than good to all parties with a stake in the outcome. This building is one that everyone loves to hate, including the judge himself. He would not be the first judge to use tough talk to get both sides to find a middle ground. His reported statements are disturbing on many levels.
You would think the way the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, people describe their building, they had nothing to do with its design and construction. They must have really wanted that cash.
the building has always reflected a sense that the search for God is dark, difficult, isolating, and ultimately lonely.
It's always nice to be reminded that leaving religion behind was the right decision for me.
I am not a religious person myself. But I can appreciate aesthetically what I read as the association between the building's formal aspects and its content--what it means for a church to be set in such an imposing building.
Hm. I read it as God S/H/Itself is dark, difficult, isolated, lonely and, in general, a self-centered pain in the ass. What kind of dumbass creates light on the First Day and the Sun on the Third? WTF is up with that? And He bangs some teenager and lets the kid get nailed to the cross? Dude, you're a dick.
The foundation of the Universe was pretty solid, but there's been some very shoddy workmanship.
It's an ugly building.
It's owners don't want to maintain it anymore and can't afford to.
It's style was a short-lived fad that is now seen as incredibly uninviting.
The only ones who want to preserve it are the historical designation elites who want to control how people use their property.
Solution: The historical preservation people pony up the money to buy the building and then maintain it forever and ever as a shining example of an ugly concrete fetish. No doubt they would soon enough be asking for city subsidies to pay for the building's upkeep because few want to visit it and it's incredibly expensive to maintain. But that's ok, because the public gets the benefit of looking at a building that everyone agrees is ugly.
it's in a sense the very best case for preservation, because the building reflects an idea that is strongly appreciated by a minority of people in the city.
Minority rule? As robertcostic mentioned above, preservation is keeping a publicly revered building standing despite the intentions of a very small minority (the owners and developers), not the other way around. It's an eyesore. If the artists want to write manifestos about it, I'm sure there are plenty of pictures that will last forever.
I'm all for historical preservation, concept. But this ugly is ugly. Yuck!
C.f., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Roberts_University#Futuristic_architecture
Keep it in the textbooks, not on the streets.
It's important to realize what preservation laws are in place to do. They are not in place to save every building of some note or worth; they are in place to require a public process to determine if such buildings should be saved. The process has worked here, with both sides stating their cases in public, and public officials weighing the facts and coming to an informed decision. Even if preservatists have not gotten what they want, the process has worked. The public has decided, and it has decided that preservation is not required here.
If preservations do want to save it, they should find a better solution, such as buying the property or finding a buyer. Right now it sounds like the only solution presented has been the church simply suck it up and live with the building as is; that's not a solution. And the public/government should not be telling a church/religion that's how they are supposed to operate.
If it is a true Christian Science church--it will never die.
How many of you who want to see it torn down have ever been inside, or have any sort of background in architectural history or preservation? Just curious.
Probably no one could find the door.
You are such a valuable contributor.
You are such a valuable contributor.
My stepfather is a preservation professional and an architect, and I've been interested in the area on admittedly an amateur basis for 25 years or so. I'm deeply committed to the preservation of worthy historic buildings (i.e. classic, pre-war architecture built of quality materials by skilled craftsmen, not post-war concrete bunkers). My favorite architect is Stanford White.
The buildings we SHOULD have fought to preserve over the years are ones like the old Army Medical Museum on the Mall, the Heurich Brewery complex, the original Portner apartments, and untold other beautiful, ornate, and study buildings that fit in well in the urban fabric, but were replaced by ghastly mutant works like the Christian Science Church.
The modernist architects who concocted such dystopian architecture and leveled pretty brick buildings in walkable, livable neighborhoods cared nothing for historic preservation. They would have been gratified had the entire District of Columbia bulldozed our architectural heritage, and replaced it with concrete towers surrounded by highways. So, why should we waste time and energy wringing our hands over the demolition of their aborted attempt to do to Washington what WWII bombers did to Warsaw, Rotterdan, Hamburg, and Dresden?
If anything, one or two of these Brutalist "masterpieces" can be dismantled carefully, and erected in a suburban field somewhere, like those parks outside of Eastern European cities where the statues of Lenin and Stalin are collected. That would seem a better thing to do if you want to preserve an example or two of a discredited, anti-humanistic dead end in architecture & design.
The National Cathedral, by point of contrast, is a bad case for preservation, because no one wants to tear it down.
I want it torn down, as I find it to be an affront to my belief in nothing. But then, not many agree with me, a German nihilist porn star.
Judge Robertson stood up to George W Bush on Guantanamo when he quit the FISA court. He stood up to that anti-Obama shyster lawyer when he ordered him to explain why he shouldn't be forced to pay all legal fees for a frivilous lawsuit. He stood up to the homophobes in the federal government when he ordered that Diane Schroer be given the job she had been denied because she was transgender. And he stood up to the District for denying for more than a year to even consider a First Amendment violation claim.
Kristen, I doubt if you've ever read the Church's legal brief, or even understand how the controlling federal law here (RLUIPA) interprets the first amendment. You seem to think that churches must be maintained - no matter what the costs (financial and otherwise) - by the faithful and for the viewing pleasure of non-believers.
Judge Robertson "gets" the building. He also gets the law. And that's why the building will be going down.
I say we turn the alter in a lab bench thereby preserving (and honoring through accuracy) the word "science" in the title.
It's an ugly ass building. Who cares?!
I would love to see nothing more than Harriet drag her feet on the ruling (which she has already done) and the Judge give his 100 page opinion. This was basically dismantle Tersh and his crew for good!