Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

+1

Not to mention, there are quite a few beautiful brutalist buildings in DC, to say nothing of our iconic brutalist metro stations. It's a very good thing indeed that there isn't a Committee of Concerned Citizens Who Are Totally Experts on Architecture who can impose their will on developments.

The small-minded posters on this thread have a provincial view on what constitutes "boring architecture."

FBI building, HUD, DOL... there are many examples of brutalist architecture in DC that's not only boring, but downright butt-ugly.

I like the Canadian embassy. I also liked the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, but...

But, you know, "I like this building"/"I think this building is ugly" is not really a design standard or something that can be implemented as policy.

Case in point. The Canadian Embassy is in fact not an example of Brutalism.

That seems to be more a question of opinion than a question of fact.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/reflecting-on-the-designs-and-legacy-of-architect-and-urban-planner-arthur-erickson-1.5192133
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/arthur-erickson-vancouver
https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/culture-monster-blog/story/2009-05-22/arthur-erickson-and-the-limits-of-architectural-labels

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

+1

Not to mention, there are quite a few beautiful brutalist buildings in DC, to say nothing of our iconic brutalist metro stations. It's a very good thing indeed that there isn't a Committee of Concerned Citizens Who Are Totally Experts on Architecture who can impose their will on developments.

The small-minded posters on this thread have a provincial view on what constitutes "boring architecture."

FBI building, HUD, DOL... there are many examples of brutalist architecture in DC that's not only boring, but downright butt-ugly.

I like the Canadian embassy. I also liked the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, but...

But, you know, "I like this building"/"I think this building is ugly" is not really a design standard or something that can be implemented as policy.

Case in point. The Canadian Embassy is in fact not an example of Brutalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

+1

Not to mention, there are quite a few beautiful brutalist buildings in DC, to say nothing of our iconic brutalist metro stations. It's a very good thing indeed that there isn't a Committee of Concerned Citizens Who Are Totally Experts on Architecture who can impose their will on developments.

The small-minded posters on this thread have a provincial view on what constitutes "boring architecture."

FBI building, HUD, DOL... there are many examples of brutalist architecture in DC that's not only boring, but downright butt-ugly.

I like the Canadian embassy. I also liked the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, but...

But, you know, "I like this building"/"I think this building is ugly" is not really a design standard or something that can be implemented as policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

+1

Not to mention, there are quite a few beautiful brutalist buildings in DC, to say nothing of our iconic brutalist metro stations. It's a very good thing indeed that there isn't a Committee of Concerned Citizens Who Are Totally Experts on Architecture who can impose their will on developments.

The small-minded posters on this thread have a provincial view on what constitutes "boring architecture."

FBI building, HUD, DOL... there are many examples of brutalist architecture in DC that's not only boring, but downright butt-ugly.

I like the Canadian embassy. I also liked the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, but...

But, you know, "I like this building"/"I think this building is ugly" is not really a design standard or something that can be implemented as policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

+1

Not to mention, there are quite a few beautiful brutalist buildings in DC, to say nothing of our iconic brutalist metro stations. It's a very good thing indeed that there isn't a Committee of Concerned Citizens Who Are Totally Experts on Architecture who can impose their will on developments.

The small-minded posters on this thread have a provincial view on what constitutes "boring architecture."

FBI building, HUD, DOL... there are many examples of brutalist architecture in DC that's not only boring, but downright butt-ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

+1

Not to mention, there are quite a few beautiful brutalist buildings in DC, to say nothing of our iconic brutalist metro stations. It's a very good thing indeed that there isn't a Committee of Concerned Citizens Who Are Totally Experts on Architecture who can impose their will on developments.

The small-minded posters on this thread have a provincial view on what constitutes "boring architecture."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

+1

Not to mention, there are quite a few beautiful brutalist buildings in DC, to say nothing of our iconic brutalist metro stations. It's a very good thing indeed that there isn't a Committee of Concerned Citizens Who Are Totally Experts on Architecture who can impose their will on developments.

The small-minded posters on this thread have a provincial view on what constitutes "boring architecture."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

The PP mentioned layers of street trees. That is green space.

What layers of street trees? Can the PP (or you) cite a street on DC that has more than 1 layer of street trees?

Funny thing about these posts is they always come from people who drive everywhere and think that complaining about some incidental amount of greenspace will absolve them from any responsibility for their environmentally destructive daily driving.

Pa Ave NW

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

The PP mentioned layers of street trees. That is green space.

What layers of street trees? Can the PP (or you) cite a street on DC that has more than 1 layer of street trees?

Funny thing about these posts is they always come from people who drive everywhere and think that complaining about some incidental amount of greenspace will absolve them from any responsibility for their environmentally destructive daily driving.

Pa Ave NW

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given everything else going on, can we afford to ruminate re: "boring architecture?"

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.

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.

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.