by former DCist Editor Ryan Avent

It’s painful to look through photographs of the beautiful old buildings that used to line the streets of the District before being torn down. Fabulous buildings, many of which resemble some of the city’s most beloved structures, ripped down because they’d become derelict and empty, or because the land was wanted for some other use – a freeway, maybe, or a new office or housing complex. It seems so senseless and absurd that such treasures would be demolished, the more so since their replacements are often loathed by today’s Washingtonians as ugly, concrete behemoths, remnants of a sorry age for the field of architecture.

And so it’s particularly galling to some that these old modernist buildings are being considered for historical preservation. Having ruined the District streetscape for nearly half a century, they now stand to enjoy protections that were denied to the buildings that were razed in order that Modernism might be inflicted upon the capital.

But then, that’s just my opinion. I have no problem declaring that the FBI building is ugly, and bad for the streetscape as well, but there were many in the 1950s that felt the same way about older buildings we’d now kill to have around. Who’s to say that the District’s concrete boxes won’t one day bring tourists into the city just as stately buildings dating to early in the 20th century or before do today.

In this month’s Washingtonian, Larry Van Dyne addresses this very question, with a focus on one of the loci of the preservationist debate — the Brutalist Third Church of Christ, Scientist at 16th and I streets near the White House. The church wants to raze its building and replace it with a lucrative office development that will include a space for the church to conduct its business. Developers also want this to be done. So does the District government. But preservationists do not.

Photo by mosley.brian