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
Once the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, razes its building -- as is now the church's confirmed right -- photographs are all that will remain of the Brutalist bunker. Take a good look now, because it won't be long before 16th and Eye NW looks quite different -- and almost certainly less architecturally distinct.
D.C. planning director Harriet Tregoning said that the building was an "experiment" that had "failed badly." No doubt, she had little say in the matter: U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson pressed the issue by threatening to overrule a decision that guides the ways in which a city can declare a church an historic building.
In what ways did the building fail? The case against the building never felt very, well, concrete: The argument that the building was not warm and inviting presupposes that Christian science is an attractive faith whose success was hindered by design. I for one do find it warm and inviting -- as an idea, as one of D.C.'s few and beleaguered modern buildings, and as a structure with some symbolic punch -- though I'm not a church adherent. The subjective argument came hand in hand with complaints about the building's maintenance expenses, which were understandable. High design sometimes means high upkeep, in particular for work from the modern period.
The church might say that the failure was experimenting in the first place. The organization plans to replace it with a design that sounds safe: a smaller church in a mixed-use facility. Will that mean offices or condos? Design pending, the only architectural question that remains in this debate is about function: how best to cash in on this primo location.
Photo by mosley.brian
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
You find it "warm and inviting?" Eesh. You must positively love those giant concrete flak towers scattered around Germany. Methinks you're just trying to play devil's advocate here, or reinforcing your hipster credibility by embracing the ugly thing.
In fact, the church:
1. Is made of shoddy materials, inside and out
2. has too few windows and doors
3. does not fit into the site well - plaza too large
4. was designed with zero context towards the neighborhood
5. is a nightmare to maintain
6. does not give off a whiff of spirituality comparable to classic church design (I'm no churchgoer either)
7. when built, it displaced several attractive, pre-WWII buildings that should have been preserved - so it should come down as to not reward the mediocre
8. it is NOT one of DC's "few and beleaguered modern buildings" - there are far too many ugly Brutalist designs around, the FBI, the Hirshorn, the Dept. of Labor, and practically all of the SW quadrant, where historic neighborhoods were razed to accomodate dystopian nightmares of which you apparently approve
9. seriously, maybe you need glasses, ha ha??!!!
Gotta agree with point #8- regardless of warm/cold/like/dislike/any other subjective criteria, there's plenty of brutalist (and other "modern" buildings) around DC.
We have a Mies that the last mayor tried to tear down. We have no Wright, no Corbusier, and most importantly, no skyscrapers. DC is not a city to see Modernist architecture.
I very much disagree that the building is not spiritual. It is not exalting like a classical church, but what would make you think it's trying to do that?
But this is neither a skyscraper nor a Pei. :)
And I think #3 and #4 are part of the point of the building. #7 is kind of a slippery slope too, I'm sure that's happened many times around town.
$5 says they find Hitler and Eva Braun in the basement. Hipsters will then flock to this vibrant, celebrity-driven neighborhood.
There are a few more complications on the legal and financial side, chief among them the fact that the church does not own the land on which the building stands. As I understand it, part of the structure was to be used by the DC bureau of the Christian Science Monitor and these plans did not materialize.
As for adaptive re-use, only two possibilities come to mind: the heap could be hauled out near I-95 to store road salt for winter or converted into a tourist attraction, The Maginot Line Experience.
When the architect says it isn't one of his better efforts, the idea of landmarking it becomes, well, silly.
Springtime for Christian Scientists?
It's a whole lot nicer than the FBI building, and far more distinctive than whatever glass box will end up in its place. While it seemed a bit of a stretch to consider it worthy of preservation, I think that area will be poorer with it gone.
The whole notion of preserving this monstrosity is flat out idiotic. First off, historic preservation is a gross violation of property rights (if the community wants something to be historic it should bloody well pay to make it historic - buy the property at market and resell it with the necessary covenants, or pay the owner to make it historic). Designating a property as historic without compensation is not very far off of eminent domain. And without the theoretical benefit that eminent domain provides. Second, and more importantly, the building is a piece of crap. Bad architecture. Bad construction. Bad everything. Historic preservation was created to STOP the construction of buildings like this. Preserving them is a perversion of anything good that historic preservation "stands for."
Well, according to the Supreme Court at least historic preservation is not at all a violation of property rights, assuming the owner can still get some economic benefit out of the property. See Penn Central v. New York.
Or see here.
Hold the phone, Mabel. Penn Central was an important victory for historic preservation, but a couple of caveats are in order.
First, Penn Central holds only that NY's historic preservation law, as applied, wasn't a regulatory taking. The law may well have infringed on property rights, but not all government infringements on property rights are prohibited or even regulated by the Constitution. In fact, very few are. Importantly, also, the court says nothing about historic preservation laws generally, only that this particular application didn't run afoul of the takings provision.
Second, a key fact in Penn Central was that the air rights above GCT were transferable. Take that away from a historic preservation scheme, and there's a closer regulatory takings argument.
sometimes, you just have to admit that something was a mistake and do the best to do it right the next time.
do we know when the church will be torn down?
I did some work in that building when christian science monitor radio still existed. I always thought is was a nice building - outside and in. Certainly it didnt look like your typical box office building. Anyway, I know most people hate/detest/loathe this building, but I've dug it since it was built when I was a kid. Now whether the church has a right to tear it down....well, that'll teach them to build something distinct and interesting.
Kenyonstreet hits on a good argument against historic preservation- it encourages the building of boring and bland architecture. No matter what you think of 3rd Church, it defines it's corner and it's a recognizable landmark. I can guarantee that whatever goes in its place will be boilerplate office architecture, and you won't be able to distinguish it from any other.
Nah, not what I meant. All I'm saying is that it's a counterfactual to say that if it weren't for this building, church attendance would be growing.
The church will not be able to tear down their building until they file for a building permit. Considering they are so hard up that they can't afford to maintain their building (if this is really true), this could be a long time.
I always wondered what these architects were thinking with the windowless design.
Consider 2 Columbus Circle in NYC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Columbus_Circle
Here is a building with the most valuable view in NYC (overlooking Central Park). Why would they choose a windowless bunker?
My theory is that this building is the headquarters of Treadstone 71
The theory was to create buildings that reflect a sense of place internally. They were focused inward. To understand the Third Church, you really have to be inside it. The sanctuary is lit by a series of skylites and is really quite spectacular.
Okay. I actually have some CS cred., so I may check it out next sunday
The tendency to design a building only from the inside out may result from the modernist fetishization of "functionality". In any event, a successful building needs to work from the inside-out and the outside-in. That's why some of the best modern architecture is underground, (eg. the Metro stations), they're underground and don't have a facade to worry about.
Is the building open to the public? Can one go inside and see it?
Bah, this building is great.. cant there be a "National Buildings that are Fuckin Metal" preservation registry?
i second this emotion.
The sanctuary is actually lovely and spiritual in feeling, and still original to 1970. My friend who is an architect was offered a tour of the building this weekend and took me along. The church does not hate the building and is not so "hard up" financially -- it simply would cost them millions to repair and then even more to continue maintaining the structure. I think it's an interesting building but it would be ridiculous to force the church to keep it when it's admittedly a failed experiment.
I have tried to go inside it on a number of occasions, both on workays and weekends, and have never found it open or even with anyone inside the reception area. Does anyone know when it can be seen inside?