Well, one thing to keep in mind is the concept of a historical neighborhood. For example, while no one of the Tudor Revival homes in Foxhall Village would meet the criteria you set out, the entire neighborhood is worth preserving.

The tough thing is to decide what constitutes an historic neighborhood. Georgetown and Old Town are the easy cases. Foxhall Village is lesser so, but still probably qualifies for protection due to the consistency of design. But what about, say, greater Dupont? You could argue that the blocks and blocks of rowhouses constitute an historic neighborhood. Thus any one house, which may not be worth protecting on its own, becomes an small but crucial part of an overall worthy-for-protection neighborhood.

I'm sure there's a whole philosphy about this that I'm not up to speed with, but I guess my point is that you can't consider your criteria without keeping in mind this philosophy.

by Reid on Aug 14, 2008 10:58 am • link • report

The fourth bullet point, "neighborhood consistency," was meant to cover the historic neighborhoods. I definitely think greater Dupont should count, or even less well preserved examples like Petworth.

by David Alpert on Aug 14, 2008 11:03 am • link • report

Will there be a part 3? If so, can I recommend a section that realizes cities are not static places, and the idea of adaptive reuse should trump straight up 'preservation' in most cases?

by Alex B. on Aug 14, 2008 11:19 am • link • report

"This doesn't mean any blank wall building can simply be torn down, but that a change which disturbs the facade to improve the streetscape should be easier than one that does not improve it."

If by any chance you had in mind the Third Church of Christ Scientist when you wrote this bullet ... It sounds like your position here is aligned with those who wish to see it preserve. From what I understand, adding more openings was one option suggested to the church officials. A multitude of other adaptive changes were also suggested, however they want nothing short than to be able to tear it down completely. I guess it complicates matters for them that they have already sold the land to a developer who has proposed replacing the structure with an office building.

by Lance on Aug 14, 2008 11:32 am • link • report

David,

This Third Church thing has really gotten under your skin.

I think that we need to have fewer smart rules rather than a lot of mediocre rules that are hard to define. The Frank Lloyd Wright Oak Park district would fail according to your standards - his front doors are impossible to find, and the houses are not particularly "urban" or high-density, but I would hate to see them not preserved.

I agree with Alex, the city is an ever changing project, we need to have adaptive re-use laws that supplement or trump preservation laws.

by MarkM on Aug 14, 2008 11:35 am • link • report

I can't wait for them to tear down the Third Church. It is terrible. And yeah, I know that's not the criteria, but what exactly is historic about it? It's not old and little of significance has occurred there. I understand the slippery slope, but this case is a no-brainer. Everyone wants that thing torn down. Now, if it were an ugly church from the 1890's, I'd say keep it. I do think age plays an important part of what's "historic."

by Scott G on Aug 14, 2008 12:08 pm • link • report

Scott - to play the Devil's Advocate - how are things supposed to get old (around 110-120 years old to use your hypothetical) if you're tearing them all down when they're 35 years old?

by Alex B. on Aug 14, 2008 12:15 pm • link • report

I would add a rule, "only the historic parts of a building are protected." Unless it's vital to the historic nature of the building, then things like replacing the plumbing and wiring, building new structures under or adjacent to the historic one, or redesigning the landscape should be totally fine. I know this is MOSTLY how things work, but I would make it a defining principle that if the government wants to restrict a property right, or tie the hands of another government agency that might need that land for public purposes, it must do so explicitly.

by Tom Veil on Aug 14, 2008 12:24 pm • link • report

Alex- I think enough buildings that are useful and desirable will survive 35, 50, 75 years to become "historic." In many cases, those that don't were deemed not worth keeping around. I know these are value judgements, but you can't keep mediocre buildings around because "someday they might be considered historic." Case in point- our modern, shoddy condo buildings going up. Cheap, terrible construction lacking soul. We know this now. And in 30 years, people will want to replace these buildings that our modern developers slapped up as cheaply as possible. But they are providing us a modern service of revitalizing (in many cases) areas where there was extreme divinvestment. Everything in life is a tradeoff, and this case is no different. To keep the old, you often stifle "progress." To destroy the old, you destroy what little character and history remains and usually end up with new, soulless monstrosities in their place. My best guess is that we need a healthy mix of both... And adaptive reuse is my architectural wet dream. haha

by Scott G on Aug 14, 2008 1:13 pm • link • report

I'm so tired of the canard that we are just utterly incapable of ever passing judgement on a building because, like a lost soul, even the most vile building is just around the corner from redemption. And thus, only its creator (and his disciples) can pass judgement.

This style was always a failure. It was never popular with those that actually had to live and work in it. It propagated simply because the architectural establishment became completely obsessed with ridding itself of any trapping of historicism and municipalities and universities (who were the biggest marks for this charade) were drawn by the cheap cost and perception of sophistication.

Any comparisons between a Brutalist building and, say, a Queen Anne are disingenuous. The Queen Anne style was enormously popular for decades. It fell out of style simply because it had been so popular for so long that people wanted to move on to something else. So yes, for a brief period of time in the early to mid part of the 20th century, it became unpopular (relative to its height in popularity). But it wasn't very long before they became popular again.

The experience of Brutalism has absolutely no parallels to Queen Anne, or any of the other great architectural styles.

by Reid on Aug 14, 2008 2:08 pm • link • report

MarkM: If you click on the "historic preservation" tag at the bottom of the post you will see I've been writing about historic preservation far beyond Third Church.

These bullet points aren't meant as rules, but principles with which we can identify what rules there should be (a subject for future parts). I'd be very interested in your opinion of what few, smart rules we should have.

The Frank Lloyd Wright Oak Park district would fit into both neighborhood consistency and possibly iconic structures. More broadly, and perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in the post, I feel we should get away from the protected vs. not dichotomy. Instead, protection should be a continuum. All buildings should be protected a little. The more historically significant it is, the more protected. But also, the less a potential change impacts the historicity and/or the more a potential change improves the urbanism, the more we should allow it.

I'll talk about that more in part 3, I think.

by David Alpert on Aug 14, 2008 2:14 pm • link • report

"I'm so tired of the canard that we are just utterly incapable of ever passing judgement on a building because, like a lost soul, even the most vile building is just around the corner from redemption."

Bravo, Reid! Well said.

Beauty is a human need. Beauty is a quality that all buildings should have, as surely as they should be durable and useful. Beauty is a function that good buildings perform as a matter of course.

Furthermore, there is a critical difference between beauty and fashion. Fashion depends on novelty, the shock of the new, and a close identification with the individual auteur. Fashion is temporary, gone in the blink of an eye. No wonder avant-gardists are obsessed with defining how many years it takes to make something historic.

Today, historic preservation is driven by academic theory and academic concerns. The goal of a more delightful, more useful built environment is far down the list of reasons to preserve, if it appears at all. That's not how it should be.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 14, 2008 6:19 pm • link • report

Ah ... I see ... Reid and Laurence think they know best what is beauty. AND, they think they can define it for the rest of us.

"It was never popular with those that actually had to live and work in it."

"surely as they should be durable and useful".

Yeah, up till a developer showed up at their door with wads of cash in hand, the "Powers that Be" at Third Church of Christ Scientist thought their place was useful to them -- very useful. (Until recently removed --- and blocked in the Internet archives --- their website extolled the beauty of the design and how it served them so well in their mission.) Now that the developer has come by with that cash in hand, miraculously they don't see the same usefulness ... or "beauty" in the building. Does that mean cash can buy "beauty" in your worlds Laurence and Reid?

Personally, I think your assumption that you can define beauty for others is not only presumptious ... but quite ugly.

by Lance on Aug 14, 2008 10:03 pm • link • report

Yeah, up till a developer showed up at their door with wads of cash in hand, the "Powers that Be" at Third Church of Christ Scientist thought their place was useful to them - THANK YOU.

by Fred on Aug 15, 2008 7:13 am • link • report

Yeah it's totally weird that a church having trouble attracting congregants would go and not bitch about the sad state of their church on their website. Obviously they should have put something on their website like: "Hey our church is a depressing eyesore that cost a ton of money to maintain and doesn't really serve our interests! Come join us Sunday!"

I am not saying that what I find beautiful should be true for all people. What I'm saying is that to the extent that the state is going to wield its powers to protect one building instead of another, it ought to recognize that not all architectural styles are made equal, and simply being a fantastic example of a terribly unpopular idea is not enough to justify state action on its behalf. This is state action remember. I have a right to argue that the state's actions should reflect my views. You can argue that it ought to reflect yours. I'm betting more people agree with me.

by Reid on Aug 15, 2008 10:49 am • link • report

Can you export your wisdom to Montgomery County and Silver Spring?

by Silver Springer on Aug 15, 2008 11:16 am • link • report

Lance - You are back presenting your specious claim that you are not making esthetic judgements. It's an esthetic judgement that the Third church is a better example of brutalism than any other example. (Your argument that it's better because it's all concrete rather than concrete on a metal frame is an esthetic judgement in itself.) It isn't even unique in its ugliness, I'm sure I can find uglier buildings in Tysons.

by tt on Aug 15, 2008 11:58 am • link • report

Landmarking should not be a popularity contest. Penn Station (which was tragically lost) and many others that were considered quite un-beautiful and unusable to many many people at the time are unfortunately now gone. A really sad loss was New Brunswick's 'unsightly and decrepit' waterfront neighborhood, removed from the National Register so it could become a vast sea of 'very important' parking right near the Amtrak Station. It could have been a 'Georgetown'.

The Third Church was evaluated by whether it possesses one or more of seven categories, one of which was "creative masters". I don't know if it qualified under the other seven (which include Architecture and Urbanism) but one was sufficient (DCMR 10A, Chapt.2).

by lou dc on Aug 15, 2008 1:58 pm • link • report

"I'm betting more people agree with me."

I think that's a safe bet, Reid. And in the realm of architecture, I have more trust in popular taste than in the judgments of most architectural magazines, professional tastemakers and academics.

What is a "creative master" anyway, but a popularity contest? You get enough glossy magazine articles written about your work, win enough prizes, get mentioned in enough textbooks, and voilà, you're a creative master! Even if (or especially if) the large majority of people scratch their heads and say "huh?" when confronted with your buildings.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 15, 2008 6:48 pm • link • report