Reply to So much for "vibrant" --boring apt. building architecture going up right and left on the Avenues

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "So much for "vibrant" --boring apt. building architecture going up right and left on the Avenues"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Given everything else going on, can we afford to ruminate re: "boring architecture?"[/quote]

I'm the OP, and I am also concerned by the other issues being discussed. However, I see it as this relentless, wearying chipping away at the reasons why anyone, at all, regardless of income would want to live here in the first place. Random violence is the base of the hierarchy of needs (safety) and MUST be addressed. But the thoughtful, possibly greed driven, unintended consequences development versus good, thoughtful urban planning development also impacts whether communities ( and the people in them) thrive. As a DC native I hold Columbia Heights as an example. No insult to the residents of Columbia Heights; it's such a cool neighborhood with so much history and so much potential. When metro came in there was a rush of bad development that did not pay off. If they had slowed down and done it better, there wouldn't be empty big box eyesores next to metro. What I see is that replicating everywhere; the developers build mediocre, profitable whatever. The neighborhood is left holding the bag when they're long gone. It's a problem for those of us who love this town.[/quote]

In 50 years, if humanity is still alive on the planet, people will be wanting to designate some of these buildings as historic, and get extremely upset about proposals to demolish them and replace them with something else.[/quote]

Sure, and some they should. Take brutalism. 50+ years later, I find it architecturally interesting as you say. However, it's really difficult to retrofit and maintain $$. Guess which large federal agency has been using this as an excuse to pack its bags and move? I would love to see it preserved, but developers want to knock it down of course.

As to demolishing and replacing--knocking down a huge building to build another huge building is environmentally unfriendly carbon-wise. I'm shocked they didn't try to preserve/repurpose at least some of the elements of the previous structures at City Ridge and Mazza. Since the new buildings are boring, 50 years from now the feeling will likely be impassivity. Have you ever been to a city with a mixture of historical and innovative architecture? Missed opportunity here.[/quote]

I am wondering about your Lake Wobegon expectation that all new buildings be interesting. Most buildings will be boring. In the past, most buildings were boring. (The ones that survive are now "historic" instead of boring.) Currently, most buildings are boring. In the future, most new buildings will be boring. By definition, it is impossible for all of [whatever] to be innovative - if that were even desirable, which I don't think it is. Especially when it comes to huge buildings, I prefer tried-and-true. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics