Sometimes I wonder if preservationists, kicking themselves for letting so many fine buildings be destroyed in the sixties, are now drastically overcompensating.

Someone wrote somewhere that modern postwar architecture has two negative effects, replacing earlier structures that were aesthetically superior, and causing people to want to preserve anything that predates 1950 or so, even if it isn't really worth keeping.

by Steve on Oct 10, 2008 12:30 pm • link • report

If you really, really want to preserve the park and shop, turn the asphalt parking lot into a park, with benches, public art, etc.

by kenf on Oct 10, 2008 12:33 pm • link • report

I agree with kenf: make the designation contingent with turning it into a park. Add a fountain or a kiosk and put enough density around it... and now you have a town square with a unique art deco look.

by The King of Spain on Oct 10, 2008 1:08 pm • link • report

@ Kenf/King, Your proposal goes 180 against what historic preservation is. The parking lot is a central feature of what is worth preserving here. Turning it into a park totally destroys the "car-centrictness" which is the essense of this place. You may as well bulldoze it over if you are going to try to disguise the parking lot.

I can see the point David is making ... but he's erred in one respect. If this shopping center were sitting on Dupont Circle (say, where the CVS is), then I'd agree with David. Despite its authencity, it could be up for consideration to be removed. But it isn't sitting there. It is sitting in a neighborhood that came to life concurrent with the establishment of this shopping center. The Park and Shop in Brightwood IS Brightwood. It might not be "Dupont Circle"-like, but it isn't in Dupont Circle ... and advocating changing this neighborhood from being "car-centric" to "walkable-centric" is not in line with the aims of historic preservation.

by Lance on Oct 10, 2008 6:25 pm • link • report

Aren't there zillions of these across this country? Why preserve a species that isn't endangered?

by Steve on Oct 10, 2008 10:35 pm • link • report

Lance: wasn't Brightwood a streetcar community before it was a strip mall community? The Park and Shop may be something you see as emblematic of Brightwood now, it wasn't always that way.

by David Alpert on Oct 11, 2008 12:49 am • link • report

Using the Cleveland Park park-and-shop as a precedent for historical preservation here is flawed. I used to work in a shop in Cleveland Park.

-The parking lot in Cleveland Park is enclosed, and it costs money to park there much of the time.

-There is only one curb cut on Connecticut Avenue to get to that lot, versus two here on Georgia.

-Connecticut Avenue has a much wider sidewalk in front of the parking

-There are traffic lights at either end of the block in Cleveland Park, making it a much safer pedestrian environment.

-Cleveland Park's has more traditional architechture, including gabled roofs.

-That strip of Cleveland Park, sitting atop a Metro station, is much denser than Brightwood and I would say has much higher parking demand.

-There are more shops in the CP shopping center.

-There is a lot more foot traffic.

-It is easier to cross Connecticut Avenue (you can even go underneath it using the Metro entrances).

-Shops in CP have street furniture and sidewalk cafes within the shopping center.

...The comparison largely stops at the fact that they are both strip malls in DC.

by Dave Murphy on Oct 11, 2008 3:09 am • link • report

@David, Yes, and before being a street car community it was a refuge for freed African-American slaves and before that it was the wilds of the area ... perhaps hosting a farm or two. But in it's most recent significant incarnation it is an urban car-centric area ... and you can only preserve what "is" and not what "was".

Dupont still "is" essentially a late 19th century/early 20th century type of place with a mix of houses, aparment-style buildings, mansions, and buildings which reflect a medium-density, walkable neighborhood with high construction standards and a vibrant street life. And THAT is what gets preserved because that is what people move here to partake of.

Brightwood has its own character. And the best of that is what is worth preserving. From what I've read, that shopping center is representative of the best of Brightwood. And that's why it's worth preserving.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2008 10:41 am • link • report

Lance,

I agree with your diagnosis of Brightwood's most significant incarnation is its current incarnation, however I disagree with your premise that historical preservation ought to be obligated to preserve the "car-centricness" of a neighborhood. If that were the case, I believe we would be granting gas stations and highway interchanges throughout the city such historical preservation.

Perhaps there are facades or individual shops that merit preservation. Perhaps one could argue that the entire structure merits preservation, however I cannot see an argument for preserving the parking spaces in front of these shops.

by Dave Murphy on Oct 11, 2008 12:41 pm • link • report

@Dave, A fundamental purpose of historic preservation is to preserve the essense of a building or a place. The essense of this shopping center IS it's "car-centricness". The way it was laid out was to accommodate parking ... To facilitate people being able to drive to the shops there. You take that part away, and you've changed the essense of the structure.

I think a lot of people assume historic preservation means "keeping old stuff around". It doesn't. It means keeping the essense of a place the way it is. For example, you could be building an entirely new "in-fill" structure in Dupont and desiging it with floor to glass plate glass windows and a green roof and either be adhering to historic preservation guidelines for that historic district ... or not. It's not the "modernity" of the structure that is going to determine if it is historically appropriate or not ... it's other things.

For example, in Dupont it would be things like its height, its massing, the quality of materials used, whether it's "flashy" or "restrained", etc. Historic preservation doesn't mean "everything must look as it did 50 years ago." That would be "Disney-fication". And no one wants that. At its heart, historic preservation means "stability". You know what you are getting when you move into a neighborhood. You can be assured that the neighborhood won't change around you ... as happened in previous times when a neighborhood could go from entirely residential to entirely commercial ... as happened to vast swaths of Dupont below the circle in the period from the '50s to the '70s.

Is this compatible with wanting to promote "smart growth" in our city? I think it can be if that "smart growth" recognizes that changing the basic heights, massing, etc. to accommodate increased density in existing historic districst is in incompatible with the goals of historic districts. Can there be growth in DC without changing the basic heights, massing, etc. which distiguish our historic districts? Yes, in my opinion.

First off, this city once had close to 900,000 people in it. We now have less than 600,000. Many historic districts could support lots more people with really doing anything to change the basic heights and massing to support the increased density. It's already there ... it's just being underutilized. Additionally, we have vast swaths of wasteland outside of historic districts that could be better utilized. The area now being rebuilt down in southeast near the baseball stadium is a good example of that.

So, yes, "smart growth" can indeed be compatible with "historic preservation" if we recognize that we can achieve overall growth, without changing the fundamentals of existing height and massing which are at the heart of historic districts.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2008 2:12 pm • link • report

Two quick thoughts.

1) Historic preservation and urban planning are not compatible if the parking lot MUST remain as is;

2) The city held 900,000 partly because families were bigger under one structure and because there were more alley dwellings, garden apartments and other non-single family homes.

Sure there is more density today, but lifestyle changes account for a significant portion of the drop in population as compared to the height.

by William on Oct 11, 2008 2:30 pm • link • report

William, I'm not following what you mean in (1). Historic preservation is a part of urban planning. Choosing to "not" make a use change is just as much a part of planning as choosing "to" make a use change. Yeah, it makes urban planning more complicated if you can't just wipe everything out and start from a clean slate as was done in the 50s/60s to entire downtowns of many cities. But it also means less dislocation for people.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2008 3:41 pm • link • report

Lance, you can't seriously be considering equating those opposed to landmarking of strip shopping centers with the urban renewal projects of the 50s and 60s, are you?

Bottom line is this: Historic preservation has its goals and objectives. From my view, sometimes those goals and objectives are not compatible with the broader goals and objectives of a living, breathing city. For me, it's a simple and obvious choice as to what trumps when those goals conflict.

It's worth noting that truly intractable conflicts between urbanism and preservation are rare, as there is usually a common ground of adaptive reuse that works well for both. Still, cities are dynamic, living places. The idea of preserving the past is certainly worthy, but must be balanced against the reality of what cities are.

------

As for the population of the District, the Census shows that the DC pop peaked in 1950 at 802,000, not 900,000.

In 1950, the average household in the US had 3.38 people. In 2000, it had 2.59. It was 4.60 back in 1900 and has been steadily declining:

http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-12.pdf

Granted, those national averages are not the best metric to use for an urban population, but 802,000/3.38 gives a rough estimate of 237,278 housing units in 1950. The same calculation today (588,000/2.59) gives us a rough estimate of 227,027 housing units. Given the steady elimination of granny flats and other small apartments, DC is more or less fully occupied - certainly not much less so than it was when it's population peaked.

In short, the drop in population since 1950 has a lot more to do with general sociological factors than it does with something specific to DC.

by Alex B. on Oct 11, 2008 4:14 pm • link • report

Lance, this is why people chastise historic preservationists. Keeping a parking lot a parking lot because of a bygone car-centric era obviates the potential needs of future generations of Washingtonians.

While preserving certain aspects of our civic culture is important, just because it is old does not mean it warrants "protection".

by William on Oct 11, 2008 4:50 pm • link • report

William "bygone car centric era" ... Please look around you. It is hardly "bygone" ... We are still seriously lacking in Washington sufficient infrastructure to live in this century. A parking lot is hardly "useless". Don't believe me? Ask Zip Car why they have to attend so many community meetings to plead for lots to leave their rental cars in.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2008 4:55 pm • link • report

@Alex "The idea of preserving the past is certainly worthy"

@William "just because it is old does not mean it warrants "protection"

Why is it so hard for people to understand that historic preservation isn't about "preserving the past" or about "protecting something old"?

With such misinformed notions about what historic preservation is about, it's no wonder some people oppose it. I guess I'd too oppose something I didn't bother to inform myself about before discussing.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2008 5:00 pm • link • report

Lance,

Are you suggesting that an antiquated lifestyle be preserved when there are excellent, more ground-breaking examples of the same thing elsewhere in the city?

Given the desire for increased transit options along Georgia Avenue, and the desire to limit our dependence on fossil fuels, do you think preserving the front of the strip mall as parking is the best option possible for the community or the city?

by William on Oct 11, 2008 5:14 pm • link • report

William. The use of personal transportation is hardly antiquated nor is its need for parking lots. If you disagree, than you should be attending community meetings asking that Zip Car not be allowed to claim more parking areas. Ditto for bicyclists, users of Smart Cars, etc.

Given your desired for increased transit options, this may not be the best solution. However, it isn't your desire that should be considered in this instance. It is the desire of the people of that neighborhood. And if they desire to keep it as it is, then that is their choice. And they have all the right in the world to use historic preservation, zoning, or whatever other tools are at their disposal. If you don't like their choice, you have the right to not move in to their community. You can vote with your feet and move in to a community that better reflects your choices for higher density or whatever it is that you'd rather to see more of.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2008 5:28 pm • link • report

Ah, but there is the rub. I do not believe it is the residents of the community who are asking for this to be landmarked.

by William on Oct 11, 2008 6:23 pm • link • report

Lance: How about if that community wants to preserve their neighborhood, they can chip in and either buy the property outright or pay the owner to keep it the way they want it.

Talk about private property being taken for public use without just compensation.

by Michael P on Oct 11, 2008 6:34 pm • link • report

@Michael, How would you feel if someone bought the lot next to your house and constructed a factory complete with smokestack on it. Wouldn't your new neighbor be the one taking something from you "without just compensation"? How does it differ if suddenly your street changes from single family residences to highrise condos with businesses on the ground floor. That is all unjust taking. Historic preservation protects against this unjust taking.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2008 11:25 pm • link • report

@Michael, How would you feel if someone bought the lot next to your house and constructed a factory complete with smokestack on it. Wouldn't your new neighbor be the one taking something from you "without just compensation"? How does it differ if suddenly your street changes from single family residences to highrise condos with businesses on the ground floor. That is all unjust taking. Historic preservation protects against this unjust taking.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2008 11:25 pm • link • report

Lance: That's a change in zoning, not historic preservation. If someone tore down the property next to mine and built a new building of the same size and FAR, ok. Constructing a factory isn't consistent with the same zoning.

There have been comments proposing that the parking lot be changed into a park. You have countered that the parking lot is part of the historic character of the neighborhood.

Which is it, either you're arguing zoning, or you're arguing historic preservation.

by Michael P on Oct 12, 2008 12:12 am • link • report

I live in Brightwood and we really need revitalization. I like historic preservation in concept (the sheridan theatre for example) However, while a park and shop is part of history the one in Silver Spring about 1.5 miles north on the same road makes the point. If I hear about one more stupid preservation league dicision on I am going to lead an effort to change the law in DC. I won't be alone. The DCPL needs to consider the will of the people and common sense more(i.e. Chr. Sci Church) or they will lose their mandate and we will lose many good historic sites.

by Lee on Oct 12, 2008 1:34 am • link • report

Also, That parking lot is not the defining element of Brightwood. There is some real history here. Check out the

Cultural tourism Website.

http://www.culturaltourismdc.org/information2546/information_show.htm?doc_id=70262

Excerpt:

Even before Emancipation, free African Americans (one of whom, Elizabeth Proctor Thomas, appears on each sign) settled in this area as early as the 1820s. Eventually a small community that also included landowners and European American farmers arose centered on today’s Georgia and Missouri Avenues.

See the Fort Stevens, where President Lincoln became the only sitting U.S. president ever to come under enemy fire!

The small and stately Battleground National Cemetery – final resting place of 41 Union soldiers

The launch point for the first-ever recorded "March on Washington"

The location of Washington's first club for "automobilists"

by Lee on Oct 12, 2008 1:41 am • link • report

I have agree with Lee. In Silver Spring, that strip mall was preserved because it was the first commercial structure in Silver Spring. Even so, I do not believe that one is worth preserving either. I am disappointed that some see the defining aspect of Brightwood being its car-oriented design.

by Dave Murphy on Oct 12, 2008 10:02 am • link • report

There's already one protected Park & Shop in Cleveland Park so DC doesn't need to designate Brightwood's, is like saying I already read DCist so I don't need to read GGW.

by Alsatian on Oct 13, 2008 4:51 pm • link • report

It's worth designating the parking lot too. I think my SG bonafides are good, same with my historic preservation bonafides. It has a lot to do with the actual form of the building.

This article discusses the form in the DC area:

Longstreth, Richard. "The Neighborhood Shopping Center in Washington, D.C., 1930 -1941." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51 (March 1992)

Read the article. It's well written.

Just because it's a parking lot doesn't mean that you have to preserve the use as a parking lot just the form. Or that you can't put parking meters there...

And just because you designate something doesn't mean that it can't be changed via a decision that an alternative proposal is one of special merit. Maybe a proposal will come along that makes it worth doing something different. maybe not, but at this point designating the building complex to maintain its architectural integrity is important.

Integrity first.

by Richard Layman on Oct 14, 2008 4:32 pm • link • report

As your disagreements with each other all point out, nobody is entirely correct. When it comes to planning, zoning, transportation, neighborhood revitalization, economic development and historic preservation, competing interests must always be weighed and decided upon as events arise. Just because something is awarded a place on the DC Inventory of Historic Places does not mean that no other interests will ever be taken into account in the future. Change can still happen and, should anyone actually have a good economic development plan for the neighborhood, and the will exists for something, there are avenues that can be explored to weigh competing interests at that time. All that is being said now is that the Park & Shop is significant. One of the things that make it significant is its car-centric form. I think because some of you think the car is evil that you are displaying aggression towards this historic designation because of a different agenda other than its significance. Seriously, nobody is jumping up and down saying "yeah, we're going to mothball the park and shop so we can prevent change and economic development forever!!!" And as for turning the parking lot into a park, why is it that every time a person in DC finds an empty piece of land there is somebody ready to say "lets turn it into a park!" Honestly, we don't need any more darn parks. Nobody sits in the copius number of pocket parks we have - save for the homeless and those in need of a toilet.

by PresProf on Oct 14, 2008 4:36 pm • link • report

I think everyone might be jumping to conclusions way to quickly about historic preservation. Preservation and economic development have been working hand-in-hand for decades. In fact, studies show that preservation is a huge tool in economic development and revitalizing areas. Many communitites embrace preservation for what it can do to retain the rich historic characters of our neighborhoods. I'd hate to walk outside one day and see the things i love about brightwood changed forever because we are so desperate for something to happen. The preservation act allows for adaptation of historic sites for current use. Before we get all up in arms about what everyone thinks can't be done let's wait and see what the proposal is for what CAN be done.

I for one am pleased that DCPL has brought so much attention to our community by working with our former ANC Commissioner Brian Lang to encourage the walking tour signs by cultural tourism and by advocating the National Park Service to do something for Battleground Cemetery.

by krista on Oct 14, 2008 4:42 pm • link • report

I understand this "landmark everything that's even remotely significant" argument, but disagree. Right now, the barrier to doing something with a landmarked property is very strong. Just look at the third-story addition in Capitol Hill they recently rejected which would have brought a two-story building up to even with the other buildings, or the fact that the Cleveland Park Park & Shop is still a low-density parking lot atop a Metro station.

If this becomes a landmark, with incredible effort someone might be able to do something here, but most likely it'll just stagnate while the rest of Brightwood develops. It's incredibly hard to come up with a good development plan that will protect the landmark and work with the urban fabric if the landmark is an ugly suburban form.

I'd be fine with designating everything in sight if we had clear guidelines for redeveloping landmarks instead of just HPRB's shifting whim, and fine with designated auto-oriented stuff for its own sake if we had guidelines that encouraged the development of auto-oriented landmarks into some form of good urbanism that still preserved something of the historicity. But we don't have those things, and I have no confidence that designating this parking lot will have any effect other than ensuring that it's always a parking lot.

If you can show me some examples of good adaptive reuse on suburban-style strip malls, I'm happy to reconsider this position. Silver Spring doesn't count, because while they did a good job with the stuff behind the parking lot, the art deco strip mall part, while attractive for its art deco aesthetic, is still suburban and pedestrian-unfriendly.

by David Alpert on Oct 14, 2008 6:06 pm • link • report

The Cleveland Park P&S is arguably the first in the country. How you can think it's form should be eradicated/radically changed -- and there are few people in the region who advocate against automobility as much as I -- is beyond me! But yep, as presprof said, this (Sheridan Theater) is about weighing multiple and competing concerns, and trying to reconcile them. It happens that I now live down the street from this particular Park and Shop and I shop in the Family Dollar a couple times/month. If you think this is the most significant issue with regard to the revitalization of Georgia Ave., you got another think coming. It's probably 87 on a list of 150. And there isn't a subway station there (or anywhere near). And the reat of the area is developed in single family detached and duplexes with the occasional small apartment building or block of rowhouses. The reason the retail is the way it is has to do with lack of density, which isn't likely to change in a significant fashion due to the built environment, which unless it is urban renewaled out of existence, won't really be able to be changed. Although, a streetcar line could make some difference. (Still and all, where I live is .9 mile to Takoma Metro and it's an incredible house that was relatively cheap!)

by Richard Layman on Oct 14, 2008 11:31 pm • link • report

Emory Beacon of Light has received a grant from DCHCD to restore the facade of the park and shop. I look forward to seeing what it looks like once it's finished!

by Krista on Oct 15, 2008 8:35 am • link • report

I agree Brightwood doesn't need more parking lots, but I think that these liitle stores would go out of business without those dedicated parking spots. It would take much more density in the blocks within walking distance to support them without convenient parking, and I doubt that the community wants to see itself bulldozed.

by Shopper on Oct 15, 2008 7:47 pm • link • report