Now and Future: Results Gym

Development

by David Alpert • August 13, 2009 2:54 pm

The owner of the building at 1612 U Street, NW, which currently houses Results Gym, is planning a modern addition to fill in a gap in the existing streetwall, accommodate more workout space, and make room for a rooftop pool on the old building. To respect the historic brick side facade of the building, the addition will use an all-glass front that keeps the old wall visible from the street.

Images from David von Storch and CORE Group.

The building, built as a warehouse, originally had a vehicle ramp on the east side leading up to the second floor. Because the building was designed to have space beside it, it has two designed facades instead of one, including arches over the top floor windows on both facades. The current owner removed the ramp, leaving an empty space, and now proposes to fill it in with the addition.

He originally proposed a four-story addition, but the Historic Preservation Office recommended lowering it to three stories to avoid covering over the arched windows. The architect designed a transparent addition that would allow people from the street or nearby buildings to see through and into the historic building. Existing floor-to-ceiling windows will become doors without disturbing the original bricks.

Image from CORE Group.

The Current and Housing Complex reported on the plan. The owner, David von Storch, wants to replace the Results Gym with a Vida Fitness, a chain he owns. According to von Storch, parking isn't an issue at the site as almost all employees take Metro or buses, and patrons live nearby or ride transit.

The Dupont Circle Conservancy supported the plan and voted to "commend the architect and owner for the project's uniqueness and sensitivity to the streetscape." (Disclosure: I am a member of the Dupont Circle Conservancy and participated in the meeting.)

11 comments — Share	— tags: architecture, DC, development, historic preservation, U Street

Then and Now and Future: Taylor Motors to Room and Board (Jul 16, 2009)
Then and Now: The Portland Flats (May 6, 2009)
A glass tower pops out on Harvard Street (Dec 29, 2008)
I'm unique too!: Whitman-Walker development plans (Nov 13, 2008)
Tenant abuse among several controversies at the Dupont ANC (Sep 11, 2008)

Comments

Neat design.

by Fritz on Aug 13, 2009 3:41 pm

When I first moved to DC nearly two decades ago, I used to look at that building and fantasize about having one big loft in the top floor, exactly like the one in the French 80s film "Diva." What made the fantasy work was the funky concrete ramp on the side of the building, in the gap the new structure would fill. I could have whipped my Harley (or wheezy Citroen) up that ramp, into some cool big elevator, up to the loft. Bathtub, candles, and cue the bootleg cassette.

by Joel Lawson on Aug 13, 2009 3:48 pm

Nicely done. The proportions are right (IMHO)and it's not trying to be something more than it should be. I understand that Core et al have to proove their avant guard bona fides every chance they get, but the renderings are horrible though.

by Thayer-D on Aug 13, 2009 3:59 pm

A lot of people bike to this gym as well. It helps that they have a long, very nice bike rack out front.

by David C on Aug 13, 2009 5:11 pm

Joel: You too??!!! I used to thing the exact same thing. Harley and all. lol.

by beatbox on Aug 13, 2009 5:42 pm

Boo...that lot is where I park my scooter when I go to Chi-Cha Lounge and Local 16. Sigh...I suppose I should think of the greater good...and a U street with new infill IS a good thing.

Now can we just do something about that EMS station across the street? I know its necessary, but it sure is a block killer.

by Chris Loos on Aug 13, 2009 10:42 pm

Chris: Did you mean the fire station across the street, or the 3rd District police command? While it may be a somewhat suburban design originally, the Fire/EMS station did benefit recently from a thorough rehab. In its own way, it looks good, as in retro brand-spanking-new-in-the-1970s good. And, even if you disagree, the reality is they aren't going to revisit a building that so recently rec'd such attention.

So, that leaves us with the, ahem, "visual challenge" of the 3rd District police structure. This stretch of U Street would benefit tremendously, as would the morale of the MPD troops, if that building were addressed somehow.

by Joel Lawson on Aug 14, 2009 8:37 am

Yes, I noticed the re-do of the Fire/EMS station. Looks better, but IMHO not nice enough to justify such an underutilization of that prime spot. I wonder whether it would be possible for a taller structure to go over the air rights of that building ... maybe as part of a total re-do (read: 'demolition') of the Police Department behind it. The District could get some much needed funding by selling the air rights over the EMS/Station and putting the police department into a larger building including other uses such as offices or maybe even condos ... (if noise from sirens and the like could be mitigated.) Either way, having that whole block on a main artery serve only 2 low-rise District buildings is a waste. A for profit enterprise would never entertain the notion ... why should we as tax payers settle for it. There are actually lots of other District properties that could benefit from the same moves. A couple years back there was a controversy over an attempt to make better use of the property around the fire dept and police station in the West End. The problem here though was that the bidding process wasn't an open and evenly-balanced one. The fear was that valuable property was being given for cheap to friends of the Council. Unfortunately, that got mis-interpreted by many to mean 'the District shouldn't be selling off any of its assets.' That, of course, is the wrong way to go. It's not like we taxpayers can afford to underutilize our resources any more than a business can.

Btw, I too really really like what they're doing with 1612 U Street. I think what they're doing illustrates what historic preservation is really all about. It's not about setting in stone past architectural styles or creating a Disneyfied version of 'what was', but instead assuring that the essential character and defining characteristics of a neighborhood are retained. And in this case the glass addition which has roof lines and a shell mimicking the adjacent smaller buildings, but yet being transparent and futuristically modern does the trick IMHO.

(Btw, as a member of the Conservancy I also obviously voted to support the application. I hope this building can serve as a good example of appropriate treatment of infills and the like around historic structures and in historic districts.)

by Lance on Aug 14, 2009 10:14 am

Directly to the east, Stetson's has plans to build a dome on their roof like Tabac has. I negotiated an ABC Voluntary Agreement a few years ago.

by Rob Halligan on Aug 14, 2009 11:41 am

@Joel - Whoops, I meant the police station. I actually thought it was all one complex until you said that. Just checked Google Streetview to refresh my memory and see that the building fronting the street is the parking garage; the station itself is behind it. I can't believe that this was ever considered a good idea, even in the 60s or 70s.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=17th+st+nw+and+u+st+nw,+washington+dc&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.601981,77.255859&ie=UTF8&ll=38.916982,-77.037935&spn=0.011002,0.018861&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=38.916983,-77.038046&panoid=fDcYOLhYTIF5vHEBRNnIGA&cbp=12,358.46,,0,10.55

by Chris Loos on Aug 14, 2009 11:54 am

Chris, the station actually fronts V Street one block up. I remember reading where Seaton Street (back when the station was built) was one of the most crime ridden (read: drug dens) streets in the District. I'm guessing the problem spilled over to adjacent 'back streets' such as V Street ... and it probably made a lot of sense back then to bring a police presence over to the inner blocks and not over on the U Street side which would have been simply a commuter route. Similarly, the lack of many windows on the building probably had a lot to do with the breakage of windows that had occured during the riots a few years prior. Unfortunately at that point in the District's history, from what I've heard, the focus wasn't on 'creating a better urban environment' because people were too busy just trying to keep safe. Note all the iron bars on windows left over in the area. The scars inflicted on the city by the riots and the criminal activities that followed in their wake are still very visible in many many ways.

by Lance on Aug 14, 2009 12:07 pm