Third Church brings civil rights lawsuit

Preservation

Third Church brings civil rights lawsuit

by David Alpert • August 8, 2008 11:51 am

The Third Church of Christ Scientist, which occupies a now-landmarked Brutalist modern building on 16th Street, has brought a civil rights lawsuit against the city after having their raze application denied by HPRB last month. According to the Post article, "the church says the landmark designation violates the First Amendment by limiting its ability to freely practice religion."

Interior of the Third Church building, Photo by rodeomilano on Flickr.

One way or another, the church is going to win. But a court victory would be the worst outcome for DC and for historic preservation in general. As I've argued before, I don't believe churches deserve special treatment in historic preservation. Instead, any owner of this building ought to be able to replace it. It's ugly, interacts badly with the street, is expensive to heat, difficult to maintain, dark, and unwelcoming. The problem isn't that it's a church; it's that it's a bad building.

A court decision for the church could set precedent regarding other churches. What happens when a church wants to tear down a row house to build a parking lot to accommodate their religious worship? The Becket Fund is salivating at this opportunity to find a test case for RLUIPA which is very sympathetic to their side. Judges are human, and emotional arguments sway them in close decisions. It'll be hard for a judge to side with preservationists on this awful building and against the sweet congregation members.

The church told community members that after the HPRB, they would pursue an appeal to the Mayor's Agent, but (unless the press coverage is misleading) it doesn't look like they are doing that. Maybe the church believes the Mayor's Agent won't accept their appeal, or maybe they simply want to help the Becket Fund make a larger point.

Either way, Dupont Circle ANC Commissioner Mike Silverstein made a good point in the Raw Fisher column:

The city should be careful what it wishes for in this case. This civil rights challenge, he said, has the potential to do for the District's ability to regulate churches what the recent Supreme Court ruling did to the city's authority over guns...blow it away altogether.

Many of my lawyer friends thought DC's pursuit of the gun lawsuit was foolish. After losing the circuit appeal, they could have tried to change the law to something less absolute. Instead, they shot the moon at the Supreme Court and now there's an individual right to bear arms that didn't definitively exist before. Gun control is worse off becasuse of DC's actions. If they're not smarter this time, we could end up with a general right of churches to ignore historic preservation. And that outcome would be far worse, even for the most ardent preservationist, than simply giving in on this one, scarcely historic building.

47 comments

Tags: historic preservation, law, Mike Silverstein, RLUIPA, Third Church

Tear down Third Church or I will, judge tells DC (Apr 9, 2009)
Third Church demolition order requires church to stay (May 14, 2009)
Church anti-preservation bill comes back (Jun 20, 2008)
Church exemption from historic designation? (Mar 17, 2008)
Evans' church bill goes beyond RLUIPA (Apr 13, 2008)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

I don't like this comment: "[It is] ugly, interacts badly with the street, is expensive to heat, difficult to maintain, dark, and unwelcoming. The problem . . . [is] that it's a bad building."

There's no point to an historic preservation law if we're only saving buildings popularly considered "good buildings" -- the market will preserve them just fine. The whole point is to preserve buildings that are underappreciated, but which might serve some greater purpose or be considered valuable in the future.

Sections of that comment you made about this Brutalist church (which church's architecture, admittedly, I'm not a huge fan of presently) could have been made almost verbatim about Grand Central Terminal in the 1960s. Good thing it didn't work.

by Joey on Aug 8, 2008 12:06 pm • link • report

I don't see how any church can "interact with the street" in teh way you seem to mean. It's not like they are going to be putting in ground floor retail or anything like that.

by Local on Aug 8, 2008 12:12 pm • link • report

I agree with Joey. 'Ugly' is totally subjective and should not be the bar with which decisions of public policy are made. Also, many churches in general tend to interact with the street poorly.

And, in all honesty, it's not that bad from the outside. Brutalist housing projects are one thing, but a church serves a different purpose and 'reads' differently to someone looking at it from the outside. This concrete monolith draws attention for that reason.

I'm not well versed in the specifics of this case, but I do think churches in general get too much of a pass, and RLUIPA sets some bad precedents for the general case of urbanism. Still, as for the merits of this particular building and brutalism in general, I don't think the reasons presented are enough to counteract the preservation arguments.

by Alex B. on Aug 8, 2008 12:20 pm • link • report

Not every aesthetically pleasing building will be preserved by the market, after all the market preserves what's profitable not what's pretty. Look at the old Penn Station in New York City. In fact, the destruction of that building to make way for Madison Square Garden was one of the major cases-in-point that led to historic preservation laws.

Historic preservation came about not to turn cities into a museum of different (and non-complimentary) building styles. The point of preservation is ultimately to preserve aesthetically superior buildings from the past. Yes, it's subjective but apart from professional architects and a few hangers-on, most people can agree on which buildings should be protected and which can go.

There are many fine churches within the District that ought to be protected from destruction or ill-informed alterations, it would be a shame to see DC lose its power to protect such buildings if it lost this suit. The city should either vacate the designation of this particular structure, and or void all designations for buildings built after 1950 or so.

by Steve on Aug 8, 2008 1:10 pm • link • report

i happen to like the brutalist style of architecture, and i've always been intrigued by that particular church. so i too, disagree with the assertion that the church is a bad building.

i'm not a first amendment scholar by a long shot, but i don't see why churches would be exempt from historical zoning board decisions. this church wasn't singled out because it was a church; historical zoning should be blind to the religious nature of the buildings it seeks to preserve. i also think it's a bit tenuous for the church to assert that having the building designated a landmark really infringes on the free exercise of their religion - it's not like they're being told they can't use the space, just that they can't knock it down.

seems to me this is a property law question, not a first amendment question.

by jenny on Aug 8, 2008 1:10 pm • link • report

"Historic preservation came about not to turn cities into a museum."

It's interesting you use this language, as the early preservation movement was focused on just this: effectively creating museums. Colonial Williamsburg was one of the first preserved districts and the proposition and success of it galvanized people into the movement, giving it its first strength.

There are a host of reasons for preserving buildings, only one of which is to "preserve aesthetically superior buildings," an assertion, I'll note, is purely subjective ("superior"?) Other reasons include history, environmentalism, urbanism, etc.

As time goes on, rarely will all these reasons come together in unison for the same buildings. But, the point is, valuing "aesthetics" is subjective, and no one person really has a way of defining it for everyone else.

by Joey on Aug 8, 2008 1:17 pm • link • report

@Joey: The entire historic preservation movement in the U.S. came about because the the market was not preserving good buildings "just fine." Penn Station was a milestone in that respect, although preservation campaigns in NYC had already been underway for decades.

The beauty of a building is an essential part of its contribution to the civic realm, and it definitely should be part of the historic preservation evaluation process. Some people think beauty is completely subjective, but that is a debate philosophers have argued for millennia, and the debate has been enlivened by recent psychological research. There's more on this topic in the comment thread with David's post, Let's write a better historic preservation law, part 1

Most importantly, humans have aesthetic needs, and we shouldn't ignore that in pursuit of an ideal of objectivity (which may not have a firm scientific basis anyhow). There is little in public policy that is entirely objective -- and that's a good thing, IMHO.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 8, 2008 1:17 pm • link • report

Last night I attended the debates between Evans and Silverman and was greatly disapointed to hear both Evans and Silverman say they would each work to ensure the destruction of The Third Church of Christ Scientist because they thought it was "ugly".

In response to that I drafted a question which got passed up to the podium but which Davis Kennedy (the moderator and the editor of the Current Newspapers) chose not to read. (I was VERY surprised to hear him say at 8:20 'We have no more questions'.)

The question read:

"Do you think a Councilmember should be taking a stance on the worthiness of preserving a structure based on politics ... or based on the advice of historic preservation experts?"

It should be noted that hundreds of architects and others from throughout the country have noted that this is one of the finest examples of all time of brutalist architecture ... which incidentally comes from the French "beton brut" or "raw concrete".

It should also be noted that as recently as some months back, the church itself was extolling the virtues of the design of the church on its own website and the connection with I.M Pei. It should also be noted that the church has already sold the land to a developer who plans to put an office building on the site and build a smaller church for the congregation. Coincidental that the building no longer serves the church's needs?

Personally, I really really like the design. It reminds me of the austerity you see in Norman churches throughout Europe. Simple, reflectful, pius. But then again, I remember liking Victorian architecture in the '60s when my father and his generation couldn't wait to see them torn down fast enough since to them they were ugly because it reminded them of ... "the past".

Historic preservation isn't about tearing down what you don't like and leaving up what you do. It is partly at least about leaving a history behind of where we've been so that all those that come after can better understand where we've been. Yes, some folks want to erase the '70s from their minds ... And like the Victorians which got pulled down by the dozens in the mid-century era of the 20th century, it's now the mid-century architecture which is most at risk. Yes, the historic preservation laws were enacted in response to the wholesale destructruction of the Victorians, but those laws apply equally to all other historic structures. And yes, this is already a historic structure to that rising mass of the population born after 1968 ... or a 40 year old, to put it another way.

by Lance on Aug 8, 2008 1:19 pm • link • report

Sorry, I think you're jumping on a random tangent I didn't mean to introduce. I wasn't intending to comment on whether historic preservation laws should be used to protect pretty buildings, or that the market necessarily will always make up for deficiencies with them. I was more casting this whole point aside to instead focus on the concept that historic preservation laws are most needed for unpopular buildings, just as the first amendement is most needed for unpopular speech.

by Joey on Aug 8, 2008 1:20 pm • link • report

i'd never come across RLUIPA before, so please pardon my ignorance in the comment above. having looked at the statute (but not at any of the case law), i suppose RLUIPA would be implicated if this were considered to be a "substantial burden" on the exercise of religion.

historical zoning would appear to fall well within section 2(a)(2)(C) "the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved."

how'd RLUIPA get passed, anyway? it seems to me to be tailor-made to exempt religious congregations from certain property laws that affect anyone else, essentially affording organized religion special protections. by giving a preference to religion over non-religion, how is that itself not an establishment violation?

by jenny on Aug 8, 2008 1:24 pm • link • report

BTW, on a somewhat related note, I drafted an article about this (on the subject of "preserving the recent past"), complete with several case studies (the NY Commissioners' plan; along with a suburbian-oriented, but historic neighborhood in Atlanta).

If you have a little time, it might be worth a read just for the case studies and pictures:

http://www.joeykatzen.com/writing/preservation_paper.pdf

by Joey on Aug 8, 2008 1:24 pm • link • report

If the church doesn't like the building, why the hell don't they just sell it to someone who does? Frankly, I don't have a problem with it and would be sad to see it disappear just because it's not the most practical building around. Would you tear down the old stone house in Georgetown for the same reason? I bet it's a lot harder to heat. ;-)

by Sean Robertson on Aug 8, 2008 1:38 pm • link • report

@Joey: There are some key differences between protecting unpopular speech and protecting unpopular buildings. Unpopular speech is protected so that those who want to may hear the speech -- and those who don't want to are always free to ignore it. Freedom of speech doesn't require anyone to listen.

Unpopular buildings, however, affect the civic realm for everybody. Everybody has to live with the urban space that is created, whether they want or not. This has impacts beyond looks; it can affect property values, walkability, neighborhood identity, etc. So buildings have certain responsibilities that speech does not.

Also, there are some limitations on free speech. There are limits related to obscenity, libel, security, etc. The architectural analogy might be design guidelines and design review (and DC does need design review, in my opinion).

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 8, 2008 1:43 pm • link • report

"The church says the landmark designation violates the First Amendment by limiting its ability to freely practice religion."

My gut reaction is to say, "Let them knock it down." But after this quote, I hope they lose their damned suit. Assholes.

"Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest." — Émile Zola

by ibc on Aug 8, 2008 2:20 pm • link • report

Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture was hated and viewed as "obscene" when it came out; The Eiffel Tower was despised when it was finished (and for sometime thereafter); New Yorkers hated the Twin Towers - it is impossible to discern what will be an "unpopular building" in the future. Should we go through the Smithsonians and get rid of all our slavery artifacts because it's "unpopular" and "obscene"?

Look ,the NRHP guidelines, Criterion C say a building is worthy of preservation if "it embodies the distinctive

characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or

that possess high artistic values..." Thus, I think this property has a lot of merits for listing on the National Register.

I do believe that we live in a democracy and it can be ugly - our built environment is a physical representation of our politics. You won't agree with all buildings all of the time, but one can respectfully disagree. I don't think that design review creates better cities - it creates unnecessary hardship on the individual property owner, who has to go round and round with a review board until he/she gets to something that the board "likes."

by MarkM on Aug 8, 2008 2:35 pm • link • report

The building should serve the use of the community and the people in it. Architects are the only ones who appreciate it. A model of the building could be put in an architectural museum and written about in textbooks. No need to waste space, energy, or monetary resources.

by AmandaC on Aug 8, 2008 4:41 pm • link • report

If a court finds that a religious institution can effectively exempt itself from the historic preservation rules that the rest of us must abide by, won't that also mean that a religious institution will also be free to exempt itself from compliance with a whole slew of other regulations and laws ... on the same "freedom of religious" basis? I.e., the Americans with Disabilities Act, Building Codes, Noise Ordinances, etc.

It seems to me that just as there are limits to one's freedom of speech when that speech begins to infringe on the rights of others (and of society in general), that there are limits to the "freedom of religion" protections as well.

by Lance on Aug 9, 2008 4:44 pm • link • report

The problem with misusing historical preservation laws in order to make a more liveable/vibrant/walkable city (regardless of historicity) is that people can successfully challenge you when you fail to preserve historic buildings.

My contention is that there should be no intrusive "review board" process to determine the historicity of every large building - it should be a proactive, funded attempt to preserve a small subset of important buildings, purchasing land covenants and actual property via eminent domain if necessary. A city-owned nonprofit has contract power and rights that an involuntary review process doesn't quite match. If you feel like it, while you're establishing your DC Historical Architecture Corporation, set up a separate DC New Urbanism Corporation that can spend a few million dollars a year purchasing some of the things you wish landowners would do, but can't zone specifically enough to force them to.

The local government having absolute, micromanaged, no-compensation power over your property "rights" is not something that was ever really intended in this country. There can be compromises, but they have to be limited and above the board (within our legal system). Otherwise, you'll never really achieve your goals, you'll be forced to consider historical preservation when you want to talk about urbanism, and likely as not the power of the review board will be eliminated when it encounters an opponent who fights back.

Side idea: Being a Brutalist concrete-form block, could the building be successfully moved out of the way of the office building, perhaps to somewhere that we already use to appreciate history?

by Squalish on Aug 9, 2008 7:53 pm • link • report

"Side idea: Being a Brutalist concrete-form block, could the building be successfully moved out of the way of the office building, perhaps to somewhere that we already use to appreciate history?"

Squalish ... the church building is 2 blocks north of the White House. How much closer can you get to "somewhere that we already use to appreciate history." Actually though, a historic designation doesn't mean "old" like most people assume. And even "historic" only barely plays into the designation.

Here are the criteria for District designated buildings, structures, and historic districts:

It is the site of a significant event;

It exemplifies significant social, historical, or physical heritage;

It exemplifies distinguishing characteristics of architecture;

It exemplifies the work of a master artist, architect, or craftsman;

It contains information about historic or prehistoric events;

In the case of a natural form or setting, it reflects significant patterns of settlement or use of the landscape.

The designation of the Third Church of Christ Scientist easily qualifies under at least two of these criteria:

"It exemplifies distinguishing characteristics of architecture" ... starting with shortly after its construction it has been regarded as one of the finest examples of its style ... and without quesition the finest example of its style in Washington. It's been written up as such over and over again since it was first built. Yeah, you might not like that style, but "like" is not a matter of determination because who's to say one person's tastes are better than another's? And tastes tend to change over time. As mentioned earlier, the preservation laws were written in reaction to people in the mid-20th century not liking Victorian architecture ... and razing them by the dozen. Penn Central Station almost was destroyed. Ditto the townhouses around Lafayette Park and the whole area of Dupont Circle/ U Street.

"It exemplifies the work of a master artist, architect, or craftsman" I.M. Pei's firm designed this building.

by Lance on Aug 9, 2008 11:08 pm • link • report

Assuming we need a monument to Brutalism (and that the rest of the District isn't adequate), this would appear to be it. So given that it's a constructed as one giant cement block, if it could be moved somewhere else and the property used as the owners preferred, would that suffice for 'historic preservation' with regards to architectural merit?

by Squalish on Aug 9, 2008 11:23 pm • link • report

"As mentioned earlier, the preservation laws were written in reaction to people in the mid-20th century not liking Victorian architecture ... and razing them by the dozen."

That's a misleading way of stating it. The reason that the preservation laws came into effect was that people lost faith in the architectural profession to improve on what they were destroying. There was no increase in tear downs in the mid-20th century, it's just that what people were building on the rubble was unprecedentedly ugly.

Not all architectural styles are built equal. Some are simply less worthwhile than the others. Brutalism is one of those. It was never popular. It destroys streetlife. It ages terribly. It's misleading to say this since Victorian design became less popular in the middle of the 20th century, then who are we to suggest that Brutalism isn't somehow equivalent to Queen Anne or Second Empire. It isn't. It's a historic mistake.

by reid on Aug 10, 2008 1:02 am • link • report

Lance:

You first say:

>> it has been regarded as one of the finest examples of its style

Then one sentence later you say:

>> you might not like that style, but "like" is not a matter of determination because who's to say one person's tastes are better than another's?

Surely, whether the church is one of the finest examples of the brutalist style is a matter of taste. It is a logical contradiction to say that objective criteria exist that enable one to distinguish the "finest" or "outstanding" examples of a style, and then to deny that such criteria enable one to distinguish some styles as being better than others.

If all styles are equal, then all buildings are equal, and nothing is worthy of preservation. (Except on purely historical grounds, of course - the Ford Theatre is not preserved for its architecture.) If all buildings are not equal, then all styles are not equal, and some styles are more worthy of preservation than others.

ps As to the history of this debate, I don't think anyone ever argued that Penn Station should be torn down because it was ugly and the new Madison Square Garden would be much more handsome.

by tt on Aug 10, 2008 9:22 am • link • report

"Not all architectural styles are built equal. Some are simply less worthwhile than the others. Brutalism is one of those."

Oh come on Reid. The problem is people are often "taught" what styles to like ... just because it's suppose to be likable. Take a good hard look one day at the White House and compare it to a building like say Dulles Airport (before the extensions) ... and tell me which one is actually pretty "average" with nothing special about it ... and which one is spectacular in design. Just try to get over your gushing about "it's the White House" first ... and remember that the White House is simply a copy of Irish country manors that are a dime a dozen in Ireland ... and built of finer construction materials then owing to the differences of what was then the British Empire there ... and a rather small and rather poor new country here ... at the time of their respective constructions.

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 10:31 am • link • report

"Surely, whether the church is one of the finest examples of the brutalist style is a matter of taste."

Nope. It is a matter of whether it "It exemplifies distinguishing characteristics of architecture". For example, repetitive geometrical designs is one of the defined characterists of brutalist architecture. The Third Church of Christ has that distinguishing characteristic ... as well the other defining characteristics. (There was a discussion on the Raw Fisher blog about this ... link is above in David's post.)

Bottom line is that you can't use "like" as a determinant since beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You may think your wife is the most beautiful spouse in the world ... but your sister probably thinks her husband is ...

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 10:53 am • link • report

... and that hairy chest that your sister 'likes' on her husband? ... you might not appreciate it as much on your wife ...

some people like the repetitive geometric styles and the austerity of poured concrete that brutalism offers ... and some people don't. I wouldn't want a board of people choosing for me which I should like and which I shouldn't ... hence why boards like the HPRB can't take people's "likes" in to account in deciding if something deserves to be disignated historical or not.

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 11:02 am • link • report

Lance, I take it, then, that you are opposed to anything that would make Tysons Corner more walkable, since the current design of the area unquestionably exemplifies distinguishing characteristics of suburban sprawl.

by tt on Aug 10, 2008 12:02 pm • link • report

Another example that is even more on point. Which is more deserving of historical preservation, the shopping center that has been landmarked in Cleveland Park, or the Exxon station next to it? The shopping center does not exemplify strip mall architecture at all, it is (to my taste) much better designed and it has much higher quality materials. The gas station, on the other hand, precisely exemplifies late 20th-century gas station architecture.

by tt on Aug 10, 2008 12:44 pm • link • report

tt, my guess is the "Park and Shop" shopping center was designated as worthy of historical preservation because "It exemplifies significant social, historical, or physical heritage". (Built in 1930, it was one of the nation's first strip malls.) If you think you can convince the HPRB that one of the designation criteria (listed above) apply to the Exxon station next door, then perhaps you have a chance at getting it designated too?

You know, it's really not all that difficult determining what deserves historic preservation when you simply look at the guidelines that the legislation established for doing such determinations. It only gets complicated if you ignore those guidelines and instead want to make special rules that justify your own likes and dislikes as many people are apparently willing to do in respect to the Third Church of Christ Scientist. The problem is, what will happen when we all find ways to find exceptions to the rules? As it was pointed out earlier, we could end up exempting ALL churches from the historic preservation rules ... and that could result in not only lots of church buildings you like being razed, but in houses next door to them being razed to make way for parking lots for them. You think this can't happen? Look at 9th Street where a church there has been holding on to lots of houses adjacent to it church for many years now. Incidentally, this is a church where most of its parishoners moved out to the suburbs years ago ... and don't have places to park when they come in on Sundays ...

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 6:39 pm • link • report

I agree with Lance that when you read the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines, there is a clear delination of what is worth keeping and what isn't.

The point I was trying to make a few posts back, is that we shouldn't tear down prevalent, good examples of an architectural trend. The issue for me is that I can't think of another good example of Brutalism in D.C.

The point of preservation is not to preserve what is popular at a given time. (If that were the case we'd probably never have anything to preserve.) Nor should it be to preserve things just because their old. (As not all old buildings are particularly well designed.) The idea is to save an architectural heritage that people can reflect upon and learn from.

by MarkM on Aug 11, 2008 9:43 am • link • report

Okay, so the strip mall in Cleveland Park was preserved solely for historic value and its architectural qualities played no role in the decision. (I doubt that very much, but I'm not familiar with the history of the decision so I can't argue.)

But then what does the term "exemplifies distinguishing characteristics" mean? By your logic, we are equally required to preserve especially ugly buildings and especially attractive buildings.

In fact, advocates of preserving the church point to its architect being I.M. Pei. Surely it's a matter of taste that Pei's work is more deserving of preservation than the guy who designed Exxon stations. I'm sure that there are more Pei buildings than Exxon stations currently landmarked.

The term "exemplify" is a weasel word. Its purpose is not to convey meaning, but to hide it. It allows preservation advocates to make esthetic judgements while pretending that they aren't.

by tt on Aug 11, 2008 11:17 am • link • report

The Park N Shop in Cleveland Park is not, to my knowledge, a landmark, but rather is a contributing structure within the Cleveland Park Historic District.

The Exxon would probably be considered a non-contributing structure.

by William on Aug 11, 2008 11:43 am • link • report

"Okay, so the strip mall in Cleveland Park was preserved solely for historic value and its architectural qualities played no role in the decision. (I doubt that very much, but I'm not familiar with the history of the decision so I can't argue.)" tt, I'm not familiar with the history of the decision either, however I can tell you that that strip area looks completely different now than it did as recently as 10 years ago. At some point (5 years ago?) it was completely revamped. Did the renovation come before or after the designation? I dunno ...

"But then what does the term "exemplifies distinguishing characteristics" mean? By your logic, we are equally required to preserve especially ugly buildings and especially attractive buildings." Again, what you consider "especially ugly" might be something I consider "especially attractive." Equally reasonable people will come to diametrically opposed positions on the "attractiveness" of a place because "attractiveness" is subjective to one's own prejudices and personal tastes. You can't expect a commission (or anyone) to base a judgement of "historical designation" on personal prejudices and tastes ... Nor would most of us want that.

"Surely it's a matter of taste that Pei's work is more deserving of preservation than the guy who designed Exxon stations. I'm sure that there are more Pei buildings than Exxon stations currently landmarked."

tt, you're basing your argument on the assumption that "everyone" will take it for granted that the Exxon station is not worthy of preservation ... Recently a lunch counter in a building in downtown DC was designated as historical. 40 years ago that lunch counter would have been "just another lunch counter". As one of only a few remainng, it is now special because without it we'd be missing a piece of the picture of "how Washington once was." Wait a few years, and the Exxon Station you keep referring to may really and truely be eligible for designation ... Especially if David and others every actually got their wishes to ban most cars from our streets ....

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 11:52 am • link • report

clarification, by "lunch counter" I meant the restaurant and not just the counter. (I think we used to refer to these operations as "lunch counters" ...)

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 11:58 am • link • report

TT-

"By your logic, we are equally required to preserve especially ugly buildings and especially attractive buildings."

Yes, exactly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - that's the point of the Sec. of Interior standards - that it is not a popularity/beauty contest, a National Register property has to have some other merits to preserve it... Is it rare? Does it represent a national/international trend? Is it place of an historic event(s), etc...?

I would argue that some gas stations should be preserved. When we went from pumps in front of a market in the 191Xs in the city to the first stand-alone stations on the periphery in the 192Xs, I'd say one or two of those structures should've been (or should be) preserved. It represents a huge change in the built environment of the U.S. - the coming mass-migration to the suburbs; the impact of new technology (the car) on the city, and change in design of gas stations from an appendage to a market to a completely new building type. These are very good reasons to preserve some of these.

As far as exemplify, I disagree again, it's not about aesthetics, it's about the story the building/district/property tells, or its place in history. It needs to be exemplary in certain/many aspects to be considered for NRHP listing.

by MarkM on Aug 11, 2008 12:18 pm • link • report

If the quality of the architecture has nothing to do with the preservation, why do the proponents of preservation point to Pei being the architect?

There is no shortage of ugly brutalist buildings, just as their is no shortage of Exxon stations at the moment. Why not let this building be torn down, and when the renovation of Crystal City and Tysons Corner approaches completion, preserve the last few brutalist buildings there?

by tt on Aug 11, 2008 12:45 pm • link • report

MarkM: I don't agree the definitions are clear. What is "exemplifies"? How many buildings exemplify? (DC's criteria use "embodies", which seems even more vague). Does every Brutalist building exemplify Brutalism? We landmarked the HUD building, the Hilton, the Tax Court Building. The Metro is Brutalist. How is the Third Church the only example? (And by the way, tt, it wasn't built by I.M.Pei, just another architect who worked with Pei).

I believe in preservation, but based on some of these arguments from Lance and others, it seems everything ought to be preserved and nothing ever built.

by David Alpert on Aug 11, 2008 12:49 pm • link • report

David/TT, I hear you 'cause for a long time I had the same questions coming to my mind about historic preservation. I think it finally clicked in my head only about a year ago when I started thinking about the Third Church of Christ and remembering the first time I saw it back when I was a freshman in college shortly after it's been constructed ...

I too thought "What on earth is this and why would anyone build it?". It wasn't till many years later that I happened to be bicycling by it (probably a few weeks before the controversy with it came about last year) and I saw it again and said "Wow ... what an amazing building! It so captures the '70s! And, oh yeah, I remember it now! Who would have thought that it would not only have survived the passing of time ... but so perfectly captured it?!"

A few weeks later I received a call from a Dupont Circle ANC commissioner (who also happened to be a congregant of that church) to ask if I could put him in touch with someone at the Committee of 100 because there was talk of tearing down the building. I couldn't believe my ears and at first thought the commissioner was looking for help to prevent the destruction of the church ... Then I got the whole story. He'd been asked by the pastor of the church for the ANC's assistance in getting it torn down ...

When you see movies that take place in the past, you don't really see the place as it was. You see it idealized as the past would have been had it been perfect. When you choose what to preserve and what not to preserve in the way of building/districts/etc/, you do the same. You chose the best (or most "perfect") 'examples' of what it is you are saving ... So that others can better understand where we've been. The end result isn't exactly what was, but is a sampling of the "best of its type" of what was.

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 2:00 pm • link • report

Lance - Now you have completely contradicted yourself. What is "best" if not an esthetic judgement?

If you mean "most typical" - then surely Tysons Corner and Crystal City are far more typical of the antihuman architecture of the 1970s.

by tt on Aug 11, 2008 2:33 pm • link • report

tt, No I haven't. I said 'best example' (as in 'most perfect example') ... no, that is not the same as "most typical". At least to me, "most typical" implies that something is mediocre ... "average" ... and not "exceptional". 'Best examples' are "exceptional" and thus worth preserving because they are rare and BEST typify a style, etc. Who knows about Tyson's Corner and Crystal City. Someday someone may indeed be able to argue that as "districts" they best typify/represent this kind of community "that was."

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 2:40 pm • link • report

David,

The difference between Metro, the Tax Court Building, the Hilton, and the Third Church (architect Araldo A. Cossutta) is the actual method of construction. Only the Third Church is a true Concrete Brutalist building. The formwork for the concrete was built, and then filled, and the wall is the structure and the finished material. The exterior is left as site-cast concrete.

This is significantly different from all the other buildings you mention, as they all have some type of frame (steel or concrete) structure covered with **pre-cast** or machined exterior finishes. So, with the Third Church the structure is the finish. (This rarely happens. Ever. Even rowhouses have "face-brick" that is applied for looks and not structure.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some preservationist who believes that everything should be saved and nothing new built, but I do believe that this is a rare building for DC.

by MarkM on Aug 11, 2008 3:03 pm • link • report

The last comment argues that the church should be preserved because it is different from other brutalist buildings. Why is true concrete somehow superior to frame structures covered with finishes? If you are not making esthetic distinctions, wouldn't it be equally valid to believe that frames covered with finishes are superior to cast concrete?

The comment before argues that the church should be preserved because it typifies the style. Yet Lance argues in a circle to say that "typifies" actually means "best example of". If it's the best example, it isn't typical. And "best" is a judgement.

I am more and more convinced that the historic preservation "criteria" are mystifications that hide meaning rather than communicate it.

by tt on Aug 11, 2008 3:36 pm • link • report

TT-

The other buildings are not Concrete Brutalist buildings.

Mark

by MarkM on Aug 11, 2008 3:41 pm • link • report

If the Third Church is the only true brutalist building in Washington, it doesn't typify or exemplify. It does just the opposite. If historic buildings are those that "exemplify" then a building that is entirely unique and always has been is the least historic building in the city.

by tt on Aug 11, 2008 4:04 pm • link • report

"Why is true concrete somehow superior to frame structures covered with finishes?"

Brutalist comes from the French for "beton brut" or "raw concrete" ... "brut" in French means "raw"/"unfinished" ... I am not an architect, but apparently the real thing for this style means that it is does not have a "finish" put on it. What you get is what you pour.

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 4:14 pm • link • report

"If the Third Church is the only true brutalist building in Washington, it doesn't typify or exemplify. It does just the opposite. If historic buildings are those that "exemplify" then a building that is entirely unique and always has been is the least historic building in the city."

Not all buildings everywhere are in Washington ...

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 5:46 pm • link • report

This was the topic of an All Things Considered segment yesterday on NPR. It was, for the most part, fairly balanced, if perhaps tipped slightly in the direction of highlighting the congregation's woe.

by Joey on Aug 22, 2008 10:13 am • link • report

I think we have wandered far off the point of what it going on here. The DC gov't has now allowed things to be set in motion that would negate ANY regulation or impingement on any church-related structure in the US.

If the 3rd church wins on 1st amendment grounds, it's game over. When you compare Constitutional rights against what is, in effect local zoning regulation, there is no contest.

If you ever want a chance at protecting any zoning or preservation regulations in regards to churches, you should be paying for the wrecking ball TODAY!

3rd church has got to go, and go quietly.

by Tom on Aug 24, 2008 5:08 pm • link • report