Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

wow the thread is all over the place.

1. Yes, the building is worth considering for historic designation because of its historicity. It doesn't have to be the equivalent of the absolute best art deco building in the world to be worth preserving.

a. and whether or not there is a historic district on CT Ave., there should be design review for CT Ave. given its prominence as a major thoroughfare in the city (e.g., this is the same reason that the Cafritz building needs design review, even though it also is a matter of right project).

2. Yes, for urban design, intensification, and leveraging the investment in transit infrastructure, it's worth consideration for building a new building that takes advantage of the location, adds housing, etc.

a. and it isn't necessary to denigrate the value of historic preservation to make this argument.

b. I'd be sad about the loss of this building complex, but can understand why the change is necessary.

c. but in return for the acceptance of loss, a way better design than this would likely be in order.

d. given the fact that BF Saul owns the Kennedy-Warren, a truly great art deco building on the corridor, they are capable of better...

3. Yes, the architecture for the proposed design could be better. (see previous statements)

4. Yes, parking lots in front of stores are convenient to customers, but no, that building form doesn't best leverage urban conditions. That being said, this part of the city developed differently than the core, but that being said, it's now the 21st century and going forward, the city needs to take strengthening urban conditions rather than diminishing them, into account when deciding on such questions.

by Richard Layman on Feb 26, 2013 2:58 pm • linkreport

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 pagespam