Amen, amen, and amen.

by DG-rad on Dec 16, 2008 5:07 pm  

Blech.

The original preservation movement wasn't really about preservation of the old. It was about saving quality urbanism from the modernist wrecking ball. It didn't matter that the old buildings were *old*; it mattered that they were *good*. But the preservationists at the time weren't honest about that, and now we have a generation of preservationists who have no real clue what they're doing, because they can't differentiate between old and good.

And because they can't differentiate between old and good, they're allowing themselves to be pre-empted by counterproductive interests left and right, such as anti-development NIMBYS.

by BeyondDC on Dec 16, 2008 5:24 pm  

Cavan,

Just because you didn't know about the Perpetual Building doesn't mean it's not worthy of preservation. I grew up no less than two blocks from that building and always enjoyed it. Benjamin Forgey may have said "Silver Spring has so many bad buildings, it's almost impossible to do any good," but the Perpetual Building is in fact a good building.

It was considered state-of-the-art at the time, utilizing classic proportions but with modern sheathing. In a lot of ways, it's a reinterpretation of the old corner bank, conveying a sense of security and importance that customers demanded from the place they put their money. The fact that it currently sits across from one of Chevy Chase Bank's faux-Greek temples that have proliferated across the region speaks to the Perpetual Building's significance: it's the only one left. The Perpetual headquarters downtown (at 11th and E, I think) was demolished; their Bethesda branch (on Wisconsin Avenue) has been altered from its original state; and the Hyattsville branch (at Belcrest and East-West Highway), done by a different architect, lacks the same graceful proportions.

Perpetual doesn't look like any of its neighbors in Downtown Silver Spring or, for that matter, many buildings I've ever seen around here. I don't know what your criteria for "sense of place," is, but I think the Historical Society is completely justified in seeking landmark status for it. Even if the building isn't landmarked, I think the site's owners should be pressured to incorporate it somehow in the redevelopment. This isn't an inappropriate site for what they've proposed (condos, I think?), and I think it would be worthwhile to bring some of Silver Spring's history into the new century.

For more info on Perpetual, you should definitely talk to Isabelle Gournay, architectural history professor at the University of Maryland. If I haven't convinced you, I think she would.

by dan reed on Dec 16, 2008 5:38 pm  

The preservation criteria offered are that "This bank is one of the first to adopt a modern style in our area." It's not the first, the only, or a good example of a style, just an example of a style in an area.

This kind of poor planning was let in a back door, when similar arguments are offered for plenty of other buildings that are more attractive, but just as prosaic. Unfortunately these arguments set a precedent for banal structures like this one to be admitted. That is not to say that those buildings are useless, but they are not historic enough for perpetual legal protections and restrictions.

by The King of Spain on Dec 16, 2008 5:40 pm  

I see a logical, formal building that works and features a monumental entrance to the street which is good quality urbanism. There. For those who hold that "quality urbanism" is the only test for preservation, this must therefore be a landmark building.

Unless, "urbanism" is code word for "ugly," which is nothing more than making a judgment of taste. What if you just have bad taste and can't tell the difference between what's attractive and unattractive?

by Egganddart on Dec 16, 2008 7:25 pm  

I've lived right near that building for most of my life. It's boring. Please knock it down and try to do something better.

by Lindemann on Dec 16, 2008 8:58 pm  

So what if it's a judgment of taste? If the vast majority of people think something is ugly, why in the world should the government get involved to protect it, unless there's a compelling overriding reason?

We're not talking about *forcing* someone to tear it down, either. We're talking about a property owner who wants* to legally use his land, and whether or not the government should force that property owner to do something against his will.

Why should the government go out of its way to protect an eyesore? Trampling on property rights to save something most people don't even like is absolutely ridiculous.

by BeyondDC on Dec 16, 2008 9:10 pm  

"If the vast majority of people think something is ugly, why in the world should the government get involved to protect it, unless there's a compelling overriding reason?"

And there was a period when the vast majority of people thought all Victorian buildings were eyesores. They, the majority, almost tore down the Old Executive Building as well as the Old Post Office (which was saved in 'the final hour'.) Historic preservation isn't about saving what is popular at any given time ... those buildings will save themselves. It is about saving for posterity those buildings that we are today too shortsighted to save 'by majority vote'/mob rule.

by Lance on Dec 16, 2008 10:28 pm  

the vast majority of people thought all Victorian buildings were eyesores

Even if that's a fact, (which I don't concede) this structure is not an example of what they might have wanted. Some bits of Victoriana (the Old Post Office, the State, War and Navy Building, which is now the EEOB) were unpopular but that was at the turn of the century when the Beaux Arts style (popularized by the White City in Chicago) was coming into vogue. I seriously doubt that when the International style was all the rage among architects and their circles, people would have preferred a Brutalist or International style building in place of an older "Victorian" building.

Tangentially, I'm curious as to what you would consider a Victorian building, I could see the Carnegie Library on Mt Vernon Square as "Victorian" and frankly I wouldn't mind seeing it get demolished.

by Steve on Dec 16, 2008 11:22 pm  

BeyondDC, what do you suggest as a "compelling overriding reason?"

Clearly, we should not be running over property rights by jamming a legal trocar into the city, when good urbanism requires an amount of constant organic change. So, it seems difficult to justify permanent legal status on a building just for its urban value, rather than for lasting cultural value. More so, some cultural sites ought to be left temporal, even great ones like Ben's Chili Bowl or CBGB.

To discern these rather complex issues, I'd rather have a panel of experts - an ideologically balanced one - rather than a simple straw poll. I don't think that's what you're suggesting, but it might be better to look into why a building is popular or unpopular and see if that will be relevant to future generations, rather than simply weigh its value based on its popularity.

A dispassioned examination will probably result in this being denied protection, but not a judgement of revulsion. Fine. Let time decide. If it's still around in 50 years, that might suggest it is important.

by The King of Spain on Dec 17, 2008 6:17 am  

I don't know if the early preservationists where trying to save urbanism as much as they where trying to save our history. It was the Colonial Dames of America who fretted over the destruction of so many important Colonial buildings during the Victorian age that should be credited.

The confusion between good urbanism and pre-modernist buildings has to do with the fact that so few people understand how anti-urban Modernism realy was. The public used to assume a new building ment progress, until the accumilation of scarred and dehumanized landscapes reached a tipping point.

What get's me about the preservationists in Silver Spring is they go on and on about this interesting transitional building, while right down Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring still has a relatively intact early 20th century Main Street. I haven't heard peep one about saving that urban context, so I'm a little skeptical of their motives.

by Thayer-D on Dec 17, 2008 7:48 am  

Let's see. In Silver Spring we have already preserved a boring neocolonial railroad station, and an early monument to autocentercity. So why not a mediocre bank building?

by kenf on Dec 17, 2008 7:55 am  

I seriously doubt that when the International style was all the rage among architects and their circles, people would have preferred a Brutalist or International style building in place of an older "Victorian" building.

Ever hear of the SW Urban Renewal?

by Robert Moses on Dec 17, 2008 10:46 am  

This building, and perhaps the 3rd Ave. CoC,might not be the best rings for preservation to get into, but the fight over what's important in the recent past and how/if it will survive the bigger/better boom is on.

We're still having battles over 100 year old Victorians (diamonds), so I doubt we'll settle the question over 50 year old buildings (lumps of coal) anytime soon. If we ever did, there's always a new batch of newer buildings that will be become historic in their own time. I see just as much disagreement about whether the MLK Library is historic.

by Saco on Dec 17, 2008 11:24 am  

"Ever hear of the SW Urban Renewal?" Yes, but if you where poor you didn't (don't) count for anything to the powers that be. For that matter the Cross Bronx Expressway, Mr. Moses. But for the well healed, one could save buildings and neighborhoods such as Grand Central Station and Lafayette Square, thank you Jackie-O!

"when the International style was all the rage among architects and their circles" says it all. The schools have lost touch with what the majority of clients ask for.

In the pre-modernist era architectural magazines, you'll see that the advertisments show similar buildings as featured in the main articles, just of a lesser grade (sometimes). Look at a typical architectural magazine today and you will see the problem. The adds show buildings that people generally like and build, which are completely different from the fashion obsessed modernist masterpieses in the main articles.

That schism underlies what's wrong with architectural schools in general. Fortunatley there are more and more exceptions to the rule.

by Thayer-D on Dec 17, 2008 12:00 pm  

@Robert Moses

Don't confuse the federal bureaucrats who authorized the "redevelopment" of SW DC with people.

by Steve on Dec 17, 2008 12:28 pm  

Beyond DC, I hear that a majority of people like chocolate more than vanilla. By your logic, we shouldn't have vanilla anymore because it's the minority taste preference. And since government shouldn't tell people what to do with their property, we shouldn't have zoning or building codes either.

In no preservation law or regulation will you find things decided on the basis of taste or beauty. Those things are subjective, and no judge is going to decide a case because red is prettier than blue.

Taste has absolutely nothing to do with the legal merits of historic preservation. You must understand that.

And the Mt. Vernon Library is Beaux Arts just like the White City in Chicago. It's not victorian at all.

And watch it's a Wonderful Life to get just a taste of what people in 1946 generally thought about victorian buildings. The buildings were despised. Or watch the Munsters for that matter.

by Egganddart on Dec 17, 2008 1:22 pm  

I don't agree that the preservation movement was really just a movement to preserve urbanism without acknowledging it.

Perhaps it was for some people, but this wasn't universal.

It wasn't even the original reason.

The earliest preservation efforts in this country were to preserve such places as Colonial Williamsburg. That effort turned the town into, effectively, an outdoor museum and theme park. That was certainly for purposes of history, not for practical urbanism (especially seeing as it eliminated any commercial or livable downtown for Williamsburg, pushing residents and commerce out into the suburban strips).

by Joey on Dec 17, 2008 1:44 pm  

Thayer-D: In the pre-modernist era architectural magazines, you'll see that the advertisments show similar buildings as featured in the main articles, just of a lesser grade (sometimes). Look at a typical architectural magazine today and you will see the problem. The adds show buildings that people generally like and build, which are completely different from the fashion obsessed modernist masterpieses in the main articles.

Have you actually looked at an architecture magazine? In the architecture magazines I've seen, the ads mostly show materials and hardware, things like paving blocks, doors, and showerheads. You know, the things that architects might actually have a role in purchasing.

I'm looking at a copy of DC Magazine that I grabbed. About 3/4 of the spaces and structures pictured show distinct modernist influences. There are enough developers who think that modernism and its successors pay - a quick look around at what's actually getting built in this town shows that much.

I have no idea what "people" want. Neither does anyone posting here - I've not seen any quantitative data on that question. But the notion that no one other than elite architects wants modernist and psuedo-modernist buildings is plainly false. Just look outside.

by David Ramos on Dec 17, 2008 2:49 pm  

Preservation focuses on the protection of individual "resources" - a building, or a district, or perhaps even just a mural or a notable piece of glasswork.

But "urbanism," as I see it used here, seems to involve a kind of systems thinking that runs counter to the ideas behind historic preservation. Urbansim privileges the health of the city/neighborhood as an ecosystem. What matters is the health of the whole. Preservation stops, at heart, with the individual resource.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the term "urbanism" as it's thrown about on weblogs recently. I know what urban planning and landscape architecture are; those are disciplines. I know what the New Urbanism and Smart Growth are; those are movements with manifestoes and conferences. I'm not so sure about "urbanism" - I'm not sure quite what it means - I think that it's a codeword for walkable streets, mixed uses, and a range of transportation options - but there's a link also to a love of new people and new economic activities in a shell of old things.

by David Ramos on Dec 17, 2008 3:05 pm  

David,

If you think that most people who buy into those new condos are there for the modernist buildings and not for the traditional "urbanism", so be it. Just to clarify, the modernist style as I think you mean it, and modernist typologies are two different things. You can dress up a good urban building in any style you'd like. But your right, I don't know what "people" want either, I just know what most people I've spoken with want.

By the way, you shoudn't feel uncomfortable with the way the word urbanism is thrown about, it's just a desire for walkable streets, mixed uses, and a range of transportation options regardless of the style of buildings.

by Thayer-D on Dec 17, 2008 4:19 pm  

Egganddart: You're exaggerating wildly and you know it.

Lance: So why is it important to save what people don't like? If we did that for everything, nothing new would ever be built, because every single building would be protected. I agree that there can be good reasons to save even ugly buildings, but just being old isn't good enough. *All* buildings are either torn down or eventually become old. Deciding what to save means applying *some* sort of value judgment *somewhere* in the process.

It wasn't my intention to suggest that popularity be the end-all of the discussion, but to say that *if* a building is unpopular, then simply being a few decades old isn't reason enough to merit preservation. There may very well be a reason, but being 30 years old isn't enough on its own for a building that nobody likes in the first place.

King of Spain asks what sort of value judgment I'd accept. To answer, I need to split buildings into two groups: those worth saving because they're good, and those worth saving for some other "compelling overriding" reason.

The "is it good" question is fairly easy. Urbanistically speaking, if the old building is better than the proposed new one, then you save the old building. Not for the sake of preservation, but for the sake of urbanism. Preservation of history has nothing to do with it.

But if the new building is urbanistically better, then we have to start asking whether there's some other reason to save the old one. Only in this case does "saving for the sake of preservation" enter the discussion at all. There are any number of good reasons to save ugly buildings: Settings of important events, firsts, lasts, landmarks, all are obvious candidates for saving. Even extreme age could be enough on its own, if we're talking about something so old that it's actually rare (if we have 500 examples of a style in the region, you don't save any given one simply on the basis of being in that style). But if a building is proposed to be torn down and replaced by something better, then anyone hoping to save the old building needs to have a good enough reason to convince KoS's "dispassioned panel of experts".

If the city would otherwise be better off without the preservation, then the onus is on preservationists to prove why a building should be saved... and if one's argument is that the city would be better off *with* preservation, then preservationists ought not get caught up arguing about other matters.

by BeyondDC on Dec 17, 2008 4:40 pm  

BTW, somebody up there said that subjective issues of taste aren't legally defensible enough around which to build a set of regulations.

Actually, as any jurisdiction in the country with an Architectural Review Board can attest, that is incorrect. The case law in this country is clear: Aesthetic concerns ARE enough to regulate.

Don't believe me? Try to build a new building in downtown Fairfax that's not made of brick. Good luck.

by BeyondDC on Dec 17, 2008 4:45 pm  

My concern "urbanism" is that the term seems to denote very little. It seems to mean, basically, "good city stuff" - otherwise it depends entirely on connotations.

Specifics help. If the complaint is that the grand redevelopment schemes of the 1950s swept away sound housing stock, why not say so? Why not say "attractive old buildings" rather than the nebulous "good urbanism"?

by David Ramos on Dec 17, 2008 4:55 pm  

Beyond DC: There are any number of good reasons to save ugly buildings: Settings of important events, firsts, lasts, landmarks, all are obvious candidates for saving. Even extreme age could be enough on its own, if we're talking about something so old that it's actually rare

You're privileging the new over the old. Doesn't even the most humdrum building help create a sense of place simply through its age? The building may mean little to a new resident, it gives that neighborhood greater depth of meaning and authenticity. Building anew invariably erases sense of place.

You're also talking about removing ugly old buildings without suggesting any need for design review of new buildings. Ugly new buildings get a pass if they've got retail on the first floor?

Considering the vast environmental costs of tearing down an old structure - ones large enough to erase the energy savings of a new building, and ones that LEED fails to capture - I'd think twice before replacing anything.

by David Ramos on Dec 17, 2008 5:10 pm  

I'm not privileging the new over the old. I'm privileging the good over the bad, and the responsible growth over the irresponsible growth. I never said there shouldn't be a review process to determine what's good or responsible. Somebody has to decide, after all.

As for specifics of what entails good urbanism, we're not providing specifics in this discussion because it's assumed that people on an urbanist website already know what they are. If you don't, read this, then on top of all the stuff in that book, add that high density around transit stations is desirable.

I'm glad you brought up environmental costs, because any time we save a small building from replacement by a large one, we should be taking into account the environmental costs of all the would-be users of the large building being somewhere else (like the car-dependent suburbs) instead.

by BeyondDC on Dec 17, 2008 5:51 pm  

You know, Jane Jacobs advocates for those small Lower East Side buildings, precisely because they enable the kind of diversity that creates a city society and a city economy.

Ms. Jacobs doesn't touch on this because she's more of a social observer than a planner - and because she didn't have to deal with absurd superblocks like the ones down in Downtown Silver Spring - but urban design literature tends to push for smaller blocks and smaller buildings as a key for successful streets and diverse retail and housing markets.

by David Ramos on Dec 17, 2008 8:11 pm  

Re: the comment about chocolate and vanilla. No one is talking about banning vanilla. If a property owner wants to preserve a property, he is perfectly free to do that. If a preservation group wants to preserve a building, it can make an offer to purchase it. Both of those options can and do happen frequently.

The actual analogy here is requiring people to eat vanilla when most of them would prefer chocolate.

The decision to preserve is a political one. Even if the decision is made by an ideologically balanced panel of experts, it is still a political decision what "ideologically balanced" means, who qualifies as an expert, what criteria are used to designate properties, and that a small panel can override the majority opinion.

Oh, and aesthetic factors are used all the time in legal documents. For instance, the new Rockville zoning code includes paragraphs such as these:

Facades and Exterior Walls Including Sides and Backs – Buildings should be designed in a way that avoids massive scale and uniform and impersonal appearance and that will provide visual interest consistent with the community's identity, character, and scale. It is recommended that building walls greater than 100 feet long include projections, recessions, or other treatments sufficient to reduce the unbroken massing of the façade along all sides of the building facing public streets.

Entryways – Building design must include design elements which clearly indicate to customers where the entrances are located and which add aesthetically pleasing character to buildings by providing highly visible customer entrances.

by Laurence Aurbach on Dec 18, 2008 12:02 pm  

The term "Victorian " is stupid- we were very smart to get rid of the monarchy here in the USA and as someone who is of Scottish origins, I resent the over-use of this term. "Gilded Era", "Reconstruction", American Renaissance",even "Robber Baron" all better describe buildings from this time. Ive heard people use the term "Victorian" even for buildings made after her death- when it should have been "Edwardian" if they are so focused on England. This country has a far richer architectural history that should not just focus on England. Actually, the largest group of Europeans in the USA were Germans- who are seldom if ever mentioned as having an influence- but actually did a lot more to build here than just about any single group.

by w on Dec 18, 2008 2:32 pm  

David - Small by width, not height.

It would help to see the proposal for what's planned to replace this. It's possible that it's a step down, but if it's a taller building sitting on the same site pad, then most likely it's better.

by BeyondDC on Dec 19, 2008 11:32 am