Report a Comment

@Lance, red-herring indeed. No one is suggesting building an industrial complex at the site of the Church.

As I mentioned, there are other proposals that HPO has supported that are similar to what the Church proposed.

Yes,the Church owns the property and has found that it can no longer use its building for its intended purpose. What the HPO, HPRB and preservation community has done is a legal taking. They will not be maintaining the building. They will not be putting it to any productive use, but yet, they have forced the church into this box. The church owns the property and has teamed with a developer who, yes, wants to develop the property while also providing a new space for the church.

The 9th floor is deemed, by all but the most ardent preservationists, to be fairly innocuous, if at all visible. While not a ground breaking design, it seems to solve all of the problems at that parcel, except for the preservationists.

by William on May 28, 2012 12:14 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam