Church exemption from historic designation?

Government

by David Alpert • March 17, 2008 7:51 am

While I was debating parking zoning regulations, Councilmember Jack Evans announced a new bill that would exempt religious institutions from being designated as historic sites against their will. This is clearly aimed at the Third Church landmarking.

The recently landmarked, Brutalist
Third Church at 16th and I

I oppose protecting that building, because I see the role of historic preservation as retaining the character of neighborhoods, not about protecting a set of standalone pieces of art by various famous architects despite their impact on the street fabric. However, I also recoil at laws that prescribe favored treatment for religious buildings. The HPRB decision was wrong not because Third Church is a church, but because it is a bad building that deadens a street corner. Its treatment should be the same whether it is a hotel, a house, or a church. Richard Layman hates the bill too.

Historic preservation has been great for DC, preventing this from turning into this. But if we already have this, should we really use law to keep it the way it is? Is it more important to maintain a variety of buildings that make DC's architecture more interesting, or preserve neighborhood fabric that also fosters a lively streetscape?

1 comment — Share	— tags: architecture, DC, downtown DC, historic preservation, politics, RLUIPA, Third Church

Third Church demolition order requires church to stay (May 14, 2009)
Third Church brings civil rights lawsuit (Aug 8, 2008)
Church anti-preservation bill comes back (Jun 20, 2008)
Evans' church bill goes beyond RLUIPA (Apr 13, 2008)
HPRB landmarks Third Church (Dec 11, 2007)

Comments

no... HIstoric Designation should preserve every single building... just because its been there a while... it should help preserve livability... or encourage a living breathing streetscape...

this church is neither...

by nate bean on Mar 22, 2008 12:37 pm