Report a Comment

Presumably, a city-wide historic review wouldn't be so objectionable if the people in charge of said review actually stuck to considerations of historical sensitivity and neighborhood context instead of entertaining a litany of complaints from the "preserve it in amber!" contingent.

Worse, even if there are no neighborhood complaints, bodies like OGB/CFA often take it upon themselves to play SimArchitect. As you and I have discussed before, TM, the criticism by these boards of Georgetown's proposed athletic training facility are a perfect case in point. You've got complaints that it's too big (even though it is much smaller than the mammoth SW Quad immediately next to the site); that it doesn't look like a gym because it's not "a great big box" which is what a gym is supposed to be; that there are too many windows; that there are not enough windows; that the windows aren't of the right type; that there's too much ornamentation; etc. etc. Only a tiny part of the discussion centered on context, with concerns expressed that the new building would overshadow and swallow up the 1950s gym next door.

And that's before we get to all the issues with preference/bias for certain firms and contractors and so on.

If these bodies actually did their job as intended, perhaps giving them authority over a wider area would make more sense.

by Dizzy on May 25, 2012 10:56 am • link • report