Architecture
West End projects bring architectural flair to DC
Last week, Mexican architect Enrique Norten of TEN Arquitectos presented his designs for two new major mixed-use projects in the West End. The two buildings will infuse a neighborhood bordered by classic but staid rowhouses and filled with boring or even depressing institutional architecture with some creativity of design.
All images courtesy of TEN Arquitectos.
The two separate projects, from Georgetown development powerhouse EastBanc, are part of a deal with the city to replace the neighborhood's aging public library and fire house. EastBanc will get the development rights to the city-owned parcels in exchange for incorporating a new library and fire station into the mixed-use developments.
The library project, to be built on three adjacent parcels along L Street NW between 23rd and 24th Streets, will devote about half of the first two floors to the library, leaving the rest of the ground floor for retail spaces, and will be topped by 10 floors of high-end residential units.
The fire station project, on a smaller single parcel at the corner of 23rd and M Streets NW, puts the fire house on the first two floors, reserves the next two for a squash club, and will be topped by four stories of workforce affordable housing.
Reactions to the building design have been positive and negative, though few would argue with Norten's characterization of these dilapidated sites as the "missing teeth" in a neighborhood which is otherwise filled with high-end residences, hotels, and offices.
Norten interestingly described the West End as a neighborhood ripe for architectural individuality. Wedged between the pomp and formality of downtown and the quaint nostalgia of Georgetown, the site calls for "freshness, energy and dynamics" that the other two, and even the West End itself to some extent, lack.
The library is certainly eye-catching at first, but a closer look reveals what is, at its heart, a relatively standard glass-box building. Still, there's intrigue in the design which allows the developer to build close to the maximum allowable square footage yet uses setbacks and overhangs to evoke something far more interesting than the glass, steel and concrete boxes that fill the entire development envelope of countless parcels throughout the city.
The exterior at first strikes the viewer as a pixelated glass amoeba, undulating in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. At second glance, the patterns become clearer as each side of building creates a 3 dimensional arrow drawing the viewer's eye around the building. Unfortunately, this pattern which repeats itself on each side makes the building loom at each left-hand corner where the top floor appears to overhang the rest of the mass, particularly in comparison to the right side which presents increasingly deep setbacks as it rises from the 6th floor.
While the the step-backs create some balconies throughout the façade, there are just as many step-outs where, not only are there no balconies, but the unit above blocks sunlight to the unit below. These step-outs rankled at least one neighbor in the building to the north. The woman was distraught that, while she bought her condo knowing that the site would be redeveloped and she would lose her southward window view, the overhanging levels on the proposed design would even eliminate the view from her patio, something she never anticipated.
Initial renderings show a street-level façade that is far more ordinary than the building above it. Luckily this is counteracted by the views into the library, which will feature a block-long "undulating wall of books" that runs the length of the interior. This design allows the library to be transparent and inviting, Norten said, while enlivening the façade from a distance with the amalgam of colors from the books.
The fire station project presents an even more engaging design. It stands as a stark contrast to the monotonous boxes that crowd the street behind it. Where large street-facing projects sometimes attempt to break this monotony horizontally, mimicking contiguous small-parcel development, here Norten engages the viewer vertically, differentiating each of the uses with a new facade styles, colors and sizes. The negative space within the parcel envelope provides a much need reprieve from the standard Washington office cube.
Architectural merits aside, the projects boast a number of outstanding urban features that will contribute to the vitality of West End and the larger neighborhood. The squash club above the fire station building will be open to the public on an hourly basis as opposed to requiring costly memberships like most sports clubs. Among the half-dozen courts will be several with designated spectator seating to accommodate squash matches and tournaments of local schools and universities.
The stories above will provide 52 units of affordable, workforce housing in a neighborhood otherwise awash in luxury condominiums, apartments and row houses. Household income for those units will be capped at 60% AMI, around $62,000 for a family or $48,000 for a single renter. Full-time students will not be eligible for these units, allaying some community members' fears that they would quickly be filled with students from neighboring Georgetown and George Washington Universities.
The library will get a new home, in an open, airy space which, Joe Sternlieb of EastBanc emphasized, will attract a much broader segment of the community. In response to neighbors' observations that the current building is often mistaken for a homeless shelter, Sternlieb responded that, in a bustling, open library the predominance of the homeless is significantly diminished, making a safer place for all users.
To maintain the library, 85% of the deed and recording taxes on sales of units in the building will be placed in a maintenance fund designated for the West End Library.
Parking for residential units is provided in a 202-space, below-grade garage. At approximately one space per unit, this is high for a building within blocks of a metro stop and every other imaginable neighborhood amenity. But, the project will replace 114 current surface spaces, and, considering the high income brackets of future residents and units sized to accommodate even couples with small children, may encourage relatively low per-capita car ownership for the target demographics.
The building will also boast 108 bike parking spaces in the garage as well racks along the property frontage. One of the ANC commissioners asked if Mr. Norten would be willing to design special bike racks to fit the style of his building design, which Norten readily agreed to. Sternlieb also pointed out that EastBanc is in discussions with DDOT about incorporating a future Capital Bikeshare station. Both projects will seek a minimum LEED Gold certification.
If any remaining qualms of the neighbors can be allayed without major changes to the design, the West End could soon become home to two of DC's more interesting architectural specimens.
 | Erik Weber has been living car-free in the District since 2009. Hailing from the home of the nation's first Urban Growth Boundary, Erik has been interested in transit since spending summers in Germany as a kid where he rode as many buses, trains and streetcars as he could find. Views expressed here are Erik's alone.    |
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
by cmc on May 4, 2011 1:25 pm • link • report
by OctaviusIII on May 4, 2011 1:28 pm • link • report
by city centroid on May 4, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
by anonymous on May 4, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
As a preservationist I applaud innovative comtemporary design that doesn't try to "out-Victorian" the Victorians. Nor is it the bland "don't offend anyone" design trash we usually get.
by Tom Coumaris on May 4, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
I'm reminded of the new NY Times skyscraper in New York City. Originally presented as a glistening beacon to the sky, the tower looks a whole lot less impressive in real life.
by andrew on May 4, 2011 1:33 pm • link • report
by Phil on May 4, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report
by OctaviusIII on May 4, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report
by andrew on May 4, 2011 1:36 pm • link • report
by Stephen Smith on May 4, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report
by Scoot on May 4, 2011 1:46 pm • link • report
Seriously. My guess is the library building is going to look a lot less shiny in person. I'm willing to give it a chance, because at least it is genuinely different than the standard box, but I've also been fooled by fancy renderings too many times to be fooled again. That building is going to look a lot more mundane in person, and it has the potential to look absolutely terrible if clad in the wrong material.
And the other building is just a standard glass box perched atop another standard glass box. It's not an "interesting architectural specimen" at all.
by BeyondDC on May 4, 2011 1:59 pm • link • report
by Doug on May 4, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report
by Trulee Pist on May 4, 2011 2:07 pm • link • report
by jimble on May 4, 2011 2:28 pm • link • report
by Thayer-D on May 4, 2011 2:28 pm • link • report
Will be interesting to see how those buildings age; I can imagine GGW back in the 1980s praising the spanish embassy and other west end buildings as being unique and interesting.
The real problem is lack of bars. More beer gardens!
by charlie on May 4, 2011 2:32 pm • link • report
And I agree, without the lens flare, detailing will make the building.
by Neil Flanagan on May 4, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report
These buildings are pretty cool looking, but I agree that I am not a fan of the "glowing" in the renderings.
by MLD on May 4, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
One trick with this fire station is the ladder truck has to back in, which involves blocking traffic on M. Also the trucks like to salmon down M in emergencies which requires more sirens than normal. So it is a nosier than usual station. And the noise is caught in the street canyon.
by charlie on May 4, 2011 2:47 pm • link • report
by Dave Murphy on May 4, 2011 3:53 pm • link • report
by Dave Murphy on May 4, 2011 3:57 pm • link • report
by spookiness on May 4, 2011 4:05 pm • link • report
May 17, 2011; 6:45 pm
Our most valued historic monuments and traditional neighborhoods are under threat from inappropriate interventions inspired by an oppositional “architecture of our time.” Joining the debate between traditionalists and modernists about how preservation and related new construction should be carried out, Professor Semes sets out a comprehensive argument for new traditional architecture that continues the style and character of historic buildings. Steven W. Semes is Academic Director of the Rome Studies Program at the University of Notre Dame. His books include The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation and The Architecture of the Classical Interior.
Location: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Boardroom (2nd Floor), 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC 20036
Cost/Reservations: $25 for ICAA members and employees of professional member firms; $35 for the general public.
Please R.S.V.P. to lectures@classicist-midatlantic.org.
by Ryan Velasco on May 4, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report
by Some Ideas on May 4, 2011 4:31 pm • link • report
A lot of people play squash who don't fit in the country club set. Washington is a town with a large population of people who have probably had exposure to squash in college, and those people might like to play squash without joining a racquet club.
Further, in cities like New York, Chicago, and New Haven, local squash programs for underprivileged kids are growing. I have my problems with those programs, but all of them are well-run and effective for the students involved.
So, you kind of missed on the squash point.
by thesixteenwords on May 4, 2011 5:01 pm • link • report
Incidentally, architecture has nothing to do with the congregation of homeless people at libraries. It has everything to do with the lack of any other sort of indoor public space or public restrooms in this city. Mies' MLK library, whose ground floor is as open and bustling as Enrique Norten hopes his will be, is just as overrun by homeless people, in part because the homeless shelter bus (deliberately) stops right in front of it. There's a great kulturkritik to be done on homeless men seated in Barcelona chairs.
by wdcab on May 4, 2011 5:06 pm • link • report
by Ron EIchner on May 4, 2011 5:32 pm • link • report
by Tom Coumaris on May 4, 2011 8:27 pm • link • report
by charlie on May 4, 2011 9:41 pm • link • report
by Tom Coumaris on May 4, 2011 11:20 pm • link • report
Guaranteed these two buildings will add to the depressing character of this neighborhood once the candy coating of their newness has worn off. Unfortunatley for most starchitects, most people at the end of the day aren't interested in "freshness, energy and dynamics" in thier domicile, they are interested in having a refuge from the everyday struggles, a place to re-charge. But these architects have never been interested in the end-users. It's the 'glowing' photo devoid humans that interests them. In this case they have succeded.
Much like the great article from Peter Eisenman in the April 29th Washington Post, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/2011/04/25/AFsuG7EF_story.html) where he defends his nostalgic and quaint 18th century New England home to what one assumes to be his avant guard architectural community, after living architecture with a capital A all day, he just wants to relax in his cozy and comforting home. Now mind you,(as the article points out) it took him 20 years of Jungian (?) analysis to figure this out, most people can't or don't bother with this journey and use their analytical time to refine what they instinctually understand.
Our refusal to learn from the past seems to know no bounds.
by Thayer-D on May 5, 2011 7:03 am • link • report
Thayer-D, you have completely failed to actually critique the buildings involved and instead just go for the usual "this is new and so it sucks" angle.
by MLD on May 5, 2011 9:06 am • link • report
As sculpture they seem ok. As buildings (the larger one mostly), it sucks because of many reasons. The cantilevered floors not only rob the units below of light, but will make people feel uncomfertable below. The "transparent" library won't be, because as everyone knows, the light glare will make it impossible to see through, yet people continue to make this assertion. It won't be inviting either becasue there's no obvious entrance, from what I can see.
I hope that's enough for you, but it all seems kind of irrelivant. Unlike the Newsmuseum that is modern, glass and excellent, this is just trendy sculpture with function stuffed into it, starchitect or not. Eisenman's article just prooves how much people wanting to seem cutting edge will buy into complete nonsence, no matter how much one tries to "actually critique the buildings involved".
by Thayer-D on May 5, 2011 10:10 am • link • report
Do architects ever live in the buildings they design? If so, they must be exhibitionists who have nothing to hang on their walls. Do they try to drive or park in the neighborhoods where they propose to build? If so, they would allow for far more parking places.
I hope this is just an "opening bid," and the developers will slowly back down and build something more in scale, and more friendly to residents and pedestrians, than this ugly paperweight. I know DC is desperate for revenue, and this Square 37 will be developed. But they can do much, much better than this. You couldn't do much worse, from a resident's point of view.
by Wendy Leibowitz on May 5, 2011 11:13 am • link • report
Not that Im against a new look or fun approach-but the limited vocabulary of the modernists- the lack of color, lack of allied Artforms [no painting or architectural sculpture is ever permitted in these designs] leaves one with a very apathetic feel- a sort of emptiness.
They just keep doing the same thing over & over trying to out-do the last -to the point where it all starts to look the same after a while.
Real Architects are NOT Sculptors or Painters-they should stick to what they do best and stop making inroads into other serious Art areneas that they know little about .
To me- much of modernism is all about cheapness and making soemthing that has good views on the inside of the structure- and most of the time looks like total dog feces from the street view.
by w on May 5, 2011 11:33 am • link • report
by Joe on May 5, 2011 11:35 am • link • report
by Hank on May 5, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report
That sailboat looking building on NJ Avenue NW at least has a little color and it goes a long way towards lessening the dreadful flat roof insttitutional box look so prevalent among all buildings made after 1950 in this city .
by w on May 5, 2011 2:28 pm • link • report
About the proposed glass rock: Why is the paperweight look so appealing? Is it cheap? I can kind of understand if it's an office building, but for a RESIDENCE? Who wants to live within glass walls? Why does the author of this blog think that this is real architecture, as opposed to places with walls that provide a bit of privacy and where I'd prefer to live? There was a hilarious article in the June 2004 issue of Vanity Fair, called "Faulty Towers," in which similar glass towers were built in Manhattan, providing beautiful views:
"The towers look out over bustling West Street to the Hudson River beyond. In Gallo’s apartment, three of the eight-foot walls are made entirely of glass and offer a panorama to the north, west, and south. To the north you see the Empire State Building; turn to the south and you see the Statue of Liberty. You feel as if you were in a boat, floating on top of sparkling water—which is just as the building’s architect, the world-renowned Richard Meier, intended..."
The article then details horrific problems with the building, with 1/3 of the owners trying to sell at one time. Here's one problem relevant to the proposed West End building:
"As the buildings went up, the owners called Born with their individual requirements and the sorts of problems that only the very wealthy have. Many people wanted to know where to hang their art, since not only are the walls mostly glass, but very few areas in the apartments are shaded from the light, unless you pull down the window coverings."
Full article at: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2004/06/meier200406
The problems of wealthy people in NYC are funny in the pages of Vanity Fair. But when they're happening next door to you, they're not so funny. (I felt sorry for the people in the Ritz who were regularly seen on the sidewalks in their pajamas because of mold, floods, and other plumbing emergencies). This building will create many an amusing article. But it will kill our neighborhood and any chance of street life.
by Wendy Leibowitz on May 5, 2011 3:08 pm • link • report
The only buildings that can ever get built in DC are boring look-alike height-restricted tissue boxes and the cheap imitations of 100-year architecture.
I would love to see something unique and creative go up for a change, but I'm not holding my breath.
by ceefer66 on May 6, 2011 11:47 am • link • report
by Burger on May 6, 2011 1:00 pm • link • report
As to the library building, this will be a detailing nightmare. I pity to contractor who will have to figure out how to maintain a continuous air, water, and thermal barrier with all of these undulations. Every transition, intersection, penetration and protrusion is a potential leak point and this design has nothing but. It seems the designer has forgotten that someone has to build this and that the building will be subjected to a climate with intense swings in temperature and humidity. You want color on the glass? How about mold green in about ten years.
Good points made BTW about the clothesline effect. Even if the developer provides the same shading devices in every unit (which I doubt they will pay for) it never looks right once occupied. This is just another monument to the designer instead of a real attempt to address the issues raised by other bloggers. Good luck folks. Glad I don't live there anymore.
by specifier on May 6, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report
So much potential here, but the developers' visions (hallucinations?) seem to swinging for the fences with broken bat.... I am guessing they have trouble selling units.... This has office space written all over it.
by J on May 7, 2011 1:42 pm • link • report
"professional opponent"
http://georgetown.patch.com/articles/eastbancs-lanier-says-he-is-happy-to-abandon-current-design-scheme-for-exxon-site-condo
by Thayer-D on May 8, 2011 3:20 am • link • report
by Joe on May 8, 2011 7:12 am • link • report
One aspect of the glass box that hasn't been mentioned is the glare of the sunlight on the glass. It can blind drivers who aren't prepared for it.
I am very encouraged that EastBanc abandoned the design of another glass box and will go back to the drawing board:
http://georgetown.patch.com/articles/eastbancs-lanier-says-he-is-happy-to-abandon-current-design-scheme-for-exxon-site-condo
What is the middle ground between glass box paperweight and "traditional" homes that are ridiculed as boring? Is there a "third way"? We have to be concrete, no pun intended, when we criticize the proposed building, or they will dismiss us as a bunch of cranks who don't want development and who do not appreciate their brilliant ideas.
Didn't EastBanc propose a brownstone once, with an archway? Looked a little bit like the Department of Commerce, without the pillars. Is that design gone forever?
by Wendy Leibowitz on May 9, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report
-they cannot build a quality dome
-they cannot build a spire
-they cannot make a dynamic but symetrically - shaped building that has color and good materials but is not butt ugly
-they do not seem to have big enough hearts and small enough egos to bring the allied art forms into the construction process- architectural sculptors and painters are ALWAYS ignored by modernist "designs" and their starchitect perpetrators
-they cannot build anything other than a flat rooftop- no slate, no metal, no tiles, no color- the modernist roof is their JUNKYARD where all of the unwanted utility services go and clutter up the look of the skyline
[ why are there so many god damn UGLY rooftops in Brooklyn from the 1950's- 80's with HUGE elevator stacks that look incredibly out of place and depressing?]
-modernists cannot make anything that lasts more than 50 years and they use the cheapest possible materials so modernism is beloved by developers who cherish the temporary "bottom line"
-modernists are NOT REAL ARTISTS they are not even good WHORES because they cannot make anything anyone loves.
the mosernist "green roof" is a justification and quick fix to make flat unsustainable rooftops work for 25 more years until the building comes down because it is so ugly no one wants be near the eyesore.
-modernist structures do not age well and they look like shit as they fall apart- contrast this to the lovely Roman and Greek ruins of yore.
by w on May 10, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report
What was brought to my attention today is that while Eastbanc won the contract based on a committment to include $15 affordable housing, they are now attemption to wiggle out of this commitment. They are also probably going to try to avoid the 50% local construction hires requirement. Looking at the design, I was wondering, How many construction workers do we actually have in DC with experience/knowledge of how to do this kind of labor? I would appreciate being brought up to date on this issue at gleeaikin@yahoo.com. Put West End Library in the Subject space so I do not delete as Spam.
by G, Lee Aikin on Jan 10, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report
Add a Comment