In case anyone is in doubt, beautiful architecture is completely compatible with the Church of Christ, Scientist. Check out these shots of the First Church in Boston.

by tom veil on Oct 28, 2008 2:01 pm • link • report

And here are some great shots of the magnificent structure here in DC we stand to lose:

www.dcpreservation.org/thirdchurch.html

... read what the congregation themselves had to say about it ... before a developer showed up at their doorstep with $$$$$.

by Lance on Oct 28, 2008 3:11 pm • link • report

I laughed when I read your comment, Tom. What is your concern? The Christian Science movement has been associated with progressive culture, so they embraced the architecture that was seen as such at the time of construction.

You do know the Mother Church is next to another building by Pei & Partners, right?

by The King of Spain on Oct 28, 2008 3:42 pm • link • report

Lance-

I know its not, but "magnificent structure"? Leaving aside the totally legitimate 1st amendment case they have, its a dead corner and an ugly building of which we have many many other brutalist examples downtown that also dont work (MLK Library, FBI HQ, etc) and should be gone. There is so much they can do there other than have windswept trash filled concrete that looks straight out of the Green Zone.

by Think a little on Oct 28, 2008 4:00 pm • link • report

Lance - are you for or against "Saving people from themselves"? IMO, the question should be: does the architecture have enough historic merit & benefit to the rest of the city that it feels it needs to deprive a landowner of their rights & property (with fair compensation)? Their own assessment of the structure is entirely irrelevant to that question.

The $$$$ in this case was more valid for the actual people & the organization involved than their appreciation of the architecture. The validity of their self-interest does not fade when a developer enters the equation, nor is it set in stone when their webmaster puts up a page.

by Squalish on Oct 28, 2008 4:17 pm • link • report

its a dead corner and an ugly building of which we have many many other brutalist examples downtown that also dont work (MLK Library, FBI HQ, etc) and should be gone.

think -

a) it's no more dead than most downtown streetcorners.

b) "ugly" is in the eye of the beholder. i, for one, think it's a stunning building.

c) does "many many" = 2? and if those two (MLK library, FBI HQ) should also be torn down, doesn't that pretty much leave the city without any brutalist buildings?

by jenny on Oct 28, 2008 4:35 pm • link • report

Jenny, two other Brutalist buildings have been landmarked, based off of the posts on this blog from the past few months. I remember a mention of a building at L'Enfant Plaza, and another in DuPont that's currently in talks with the ANC over loading dock issues and impacts on walkability...

by Cavan on Oct 28, 2008 4:46 pm • link • report

Think a Little, the "1st Amendment case" is not a legitimate issue. It's a red herring. The congregation is free to use the structure as they please. They can even modify the interior entirely. That "lightbulb" story is just that. No one is standing in their way of changing the fixtures or doing whatever else they want to do to make it easier to change their lightbulbs. Just another "red herring" in this whole episode. Tell me, if this were the National Cathedral and the same arguments were being put forth by its congregation ... how would you respond?

by Lance on Oct 28, 2008 5:00 pm • link • report

There are at least three: the HUD building in Southwest, the Tax Court building near Judiciary Square, and the Hilton. GSA is going through all their properties and identifying the ones most worthy of landmarking. I also like this building, I believe 525 23rd St NW.

by David Alpert on Oct 28, 2008 5:01 pm • link • report

David, From what I understand, none of those buildings are true brutalist buildings because they are not constructed entirely of raw concrete as the Third Church of Christ Scientist is. Even if you consider them in the brutalist style, they still can't be viewed as representative of a real brutalist building as the only such building we have in Washington constructed in the brutalist manner ... i.e., the Third Church of Christ Scientist.

Frankly, if this building got landmarked it had to meet the criteria for such landmarking. One can argue they don't like the style, or that they feel that owners have a greater right than the rights which landmark designation gives to the surrounding community, or any of a number of things ... But to argue about the eligibility for landmarking when the experts have already landmarked the building is kinda non-sensical ... to be frank.

by Lance on Oct 28, 2008 5:15 pm • link • report

Quick! Knock down the church now for an office building. We need another office building. Hurry.

For real though. Anyone truly interested should visit inside the church. It's one of the most quiet, contemplative, spiritual places in the city. It's awe-inspiring. There's more to architecture than a keyboard, flickr photos, google maps and Marc Fisher.

by White Collar Groupie on Oct 28, 2008 5:25 pm • link • report

I think what is missing in the blog entry is that Tregoning being a subordinate to Albert is not the only issue as to why DCPL asked for her recusal. The primary issue is that in Albert's letter was not only in opposition to the landmark designation but he took a clear position in favor of the "proposed redevelopment project" thus supporting the raze of the Church.

by MAR13 on Oct 28, 2008 5:53 pm • link • report

There are a number of "brutalist" buildings in this city if you are talking about aggressive structural expression. If you are talking about the use of "beton brut," as in any building with lots of exposed concrete, then there are another slew of buildings that don't fit the conventional wisdom.

In my definition, which is both wildly expressive and made of concrete, there are still a number of buildings. For example, L'Enfant Plaza, there is the Forrestal Building, which in spite of obvious problems has some amazing moments, the Hubert Humphrey Building, by Breuer, as well as many residential structures in Southwest. Let's not forget Metro stations, or UDC, which also has lots of flaws, or the Slayton House designed by Pei that's on Ordway Street.

On the other hand, there is the really wretched Department of Labor, some GWU buildings and a lot of dreary Bureaucy Box architecture elsewhere including a lot of prewar structures.

The best concrete building, I think, in terms of humanity and urbanism, is the Office of Thrift Supervision building across 18th street from the OEOB. It's more Kahn than Breuer, though.

by The King of Spain on Oct 28, 2008 6:30 pm • link • report

Knock it down. Let them do what they want with THEIR building, especially since it's not historic...

No one will ever miss this thing

by SG on Oct 28, 2008 9:43 pm • link • report

Lance-

If the Cathedral people want to tear down their building its their right-provided they own the land and the structure. If DC wants to prevent it DC needs to come up with the $$$ (as Squalish says). Its one thing if you have a group that bought into a historic building knowing it had the designation to force them to keep it. Its another entirely if they built it before it had the designation, it creates an uncompensated government taking and as the lovely 5th amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." DC wants to declare it historical, fine pay the church the decline in value inflicted on the property.

by Think a little on Oct 28, 2008 11:20 pm • link • report

Initially I was inclined to suggest moving it (yay for raw concrete pours and the amazing skill of building movers), but a 70-foot-wide building is too wide for the streets, and there's just nowhere nearby for it to go - I suppose you could put it right on the corner of the block and put in L-shaped offices behind it, but I don't know whether that's practical from a construction perspective.

For those who want "Historical preservation" to take the role of "Architectural conservation" - would it be any less historic if the DC Preservation League constructed a replica (made of raw poured concrete) in another location and used all the detailing from the old structure before it was fully demolished?

by Squalish on Oct 29, 2008 10:01 am • link • report

If I join the church as a member, do I own it? Does my pro-preservation, church-member opinion trump all anti-preservation, non-church-member opinions then?

Logic based on the concept that the owner's desire trumps all other interests gets shaky fast when it comes to church architecture. Who is the church? The motherchurch, the pastor, the church council, the congregants?

by White Collar Groupie on Oct 29, 2008 11:17 am • link • report

The metro stations are the best example of Brutalism we have, I think. For the most part, the stations are functioning properly.

I like the way the 3rd church looks from the outside. However when I read about the functional problems of heating it, it's leaking roof, the impractical lighting, even the skylight that interfers with the organists' sight when s/he's trying to perform a church function - it became clear to me this building is a failure as a building. All of these problems contribute to it's failure and further to it's failure in expressing Brutalism. Brutalism is supposed to express, among other things, some pragmatic approach to construction. The functioning problems are examples of a failure to embrace pragmatic approaches to fulfilling the needs of the building. Any building is first and foremost a structure with a function, regardless of it's form. The 3rd church fails functionally, both generally and in its "brutulistism'. I like how it looks, sculpturally. That's not enough. It must perform its functions as well, and it doesn't. These problems would make it a failure in any architectural style. They seem like extra-failures in a style that's supposed to embrace pragmatism.

by Bianchi on Oct 29, 2008 12:16 pm • link • report

Bianchi: "However when I read about the functional problems of heating it, it's leaking roof, the impractical lighting, even the skylight that interfers with the organists' sight when s/he's trying to perform a church function - it became clear to me this building is a failure as a building."

I say again, the public's been thrown a red herring by the developer's PR folks. Landmark designation does not prevent the church from making any and all changes necessary to correct any and all of these problems. Landmark designation of the church only covers the exterior of the church ... AND even that is not sacrosant. From what I've heard the preservation folks have even said making changes such as adding windows to the exterior is okay. The church folks aren't looking to excercise any of the many rights they hold to make changes to the church because they simply want to tear it down to sell the land. Period.

And SG, sorry but 'no' ... it IS historic. It has been landmarked as such. Something doesn't need to be 200 yrs old to be historic. This church building was so innovative and visionary that it was recognized as historic within a year or two of completion. Something's gotta be old to be historic? Then why do I keep hearing this presidential election is "historic"? ... and it hasn't even occured yet.

by Lance on Oct 29, 2008 2:49 pm • link • report

The HUD building is amazing in a good way. The Third Christian Science building is amazing in a bad way. Stunning indeed.

by Mark on Oct 29, 2008 6:10 pm • link • report

Hmm. Is historic preservation a compelling government interest? As I understand it, that's what a court would have to conclude for the landmark designation of the Third Church (and ultimately, all religious structures in the District) to survive strict scrutiny under RFRA. Further, under strict scrutiny, the burden is on the District to prove the compelling interest, the Church doesn't have to prove anything.

The HBRP's absurd contention that they "don't have the authority" to interpret RFRA or RLUIPA is a blinkered cop-out. They don't have the authority to strike down the District's laws in the name of the Constitution, (which a federal court does, and will). They are obliged though, to make a good faith effort to understand and obey relevant federal laws concerning religious land uses and free exercise. That they chose to ignore the relevant statues and case law proves they really didn't care what the law said, they were intent on forcing the owners of this church to keep the present building whether they had the authority or not. Obviously, they were betting that the congregation wouldn't sue to undo the landmarking and they were wrong. Here's hoping that Tregoning will do the right thing and reverse their decision.

Oh, and the present building is an ugly octagonal pill-box. Ironically, the actual fortifications inside the District (eg. Fort Reno) manage to have better aesthetic appeal.

by Steve on Oct 29, 2008 11:57 pm • link • report

Steve, Of course historic preservation is a compelling government interest ... and it's even more compelling to preserve a landmarked public building such as a church than our own homes in historic district which may themselves be subject to the same historic preservation and zoning laws. I've yet to see a court rule that our homes shouldn't be subject to such regulations, I can't imagine the courts the courts reversing their stand starting with our some of our most prized national treasures, our churches.

In some countries, for example France, they long ago nationalized community religious places such as their churches in the belief that they are so compelling and worthy of a government interest, that the government, as the steward for the people of the nation, should hold ultimate responsibility for the upkeep, maintenance, and preservation of these national treasures. The churches and other religious groups rent back this space for their own purposes. I'm not proposing we do the same, I'm just mentioning this to prove how silly the notion that the general public wouldn't have a compelling interest in preserving its national treasures is.

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 9:22 am • link • report

Lance,

There are a couple of issues with your comment, first you confuse the standard of review that would be applied. For a private home the standard would be ordinary scrutiny, which requires only a "legitimate" government interest. For a church, the standard would be strict scrutiny which requires a "compelling" government interest. Further, I think you're mistaken about what constitutes compelling government interest. National security or preventing a breach of the peace are usually cited as compelling interests. I fail to see how "historic preservation" even comes close.

Your reference to nationalization in France was interesting as it's precisely the kind of government intrusion into religion that both religion clauses (establishment and free exercise) were intended to prevent.

by Steve on Oct 30, 2008 11:23 am • link • report

Regarding the renovations that would make the 3rd church functionable - who would be compelled to pay for them? Would DC pick up the tab? Of course not. The burden would fall on the Church. I would rather see the Christian Scientists use their money to continue supporting the Monitor to expose human rights violations around the world.

by Bianchi on Oct 30, 2008 11:35 am • link • report

Steve,

Please explain why in your view, our homes, which are private buildings, should be more open to government regulation via zoning and historic preservation laws than our churches ... which are by definition public buildings? Do not stores, offices, and other public buildings not have a greater responsibility toward the public as evidenced by stricter rules regarding ADA compliance, fire codes, etc?

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 12:53 pm • link • report

Bianchi, Who picks up the tab when I make changes to my home to make it warmer (e.g., installing insulation) or any other improvements? I'd rather use my funds for other causes too, but that is the responsibility that comes with owning a building.

If I can't afford to make the changes I want to may house, I have two choices: (1) not make the changes or (2) sell it and buy something that better suits my needs and my budget.

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 12:58 pm • link • report

And that's just what the 3rd Church wants to do.

by Bianchi on Oct 30, 2008 1:16 pm • link • report

Great. So the new owner knows what they bought: a landmarked structure that has been deemed worthy of preservation. i.e., NO RAZING!

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 1:44 pm • link • report

It's not worthy of the designation. It fails as a building. If DC wants to preserve it as a sculptural representation of what a brutalist bldg might look like, thats something else.

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

Lance,

The reason why regulatory schemes, as they apply to houses of worship, are subject to much greater scrutiny by courts is that free exercise of religion is expressly protected by the Bill of Rights. None of the other situations you mention is related to a fundamental right. While "laws of general applicability" generally do apply to churches, under RFRA they are subject to strict, rather than ordinary scrutiny. Thus to survive review regulations must be narrowly tailored to protect a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. If this case were actually tried, DC would have a lot of hurdles to jump and I doubt they could.

by Steve on Oct 30, 2008 2:56 pm • link • report

Steve,

Assuming for a second that the courts agreed with your viewpoint, then what would be the result in regards to all the other places of worship ... including places like the National Cathedral? They'd all be in a position of being razed simply because the current stewards of the property had some wads of cash flashed at them. That's why what you're hoping for won't happen. It can't. The public wouldn't stand for it. It's just bad public policy. Laws are always subject to interpretation.

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 3:30 pm • link • report

Lance,

That's precisely the problem, there are many fine churches that do deserve historical protection. Suing the District to remove the landmark status isn't necessarily easy or cheap. The bother of suing serves as a deterrent to a congregation with a landmarked building from making frivolous changes. (By contrast, a commercial or residential property owner who wants to modify a landmarked building simply can't if HBRP won't allow it.) Once a precedent is established though, that churches or synagogues can't be covered by landmark status, then congregations could have a green light to make any change they want, however ill-advised (building vast parking lots, for instance). HBRP could have chosen to let the ugliest church in DC be demolished to protect all the rest, but might lose on this one (as it probably would) and by extension lose them all. Like I said, I hope Tregoning will stop it from getting that far.

by Steve on Oct 30, 2008 4:07 pm • link • report

But you see Steve, part of the problem is that though you might think it ugly, we don't all agree. I find it quite beautiful actually ... as do many others ... including the many architectural experts whose testimony over the years provided the basis for landmarking the structure. And as a resident of this city, I have an interest in seeing my city's beautiful landmarks not destroyed.

If we only wanted to protect those structures where "most people" in the 'here and now' thought they were worthy of being preserved, we wouldn't need preservation laws. The opinons of the "majority" would ensure that in one way or another the structure didn't meet the wrecking ball. But, historic preservation laws exist to safeguard precisely against that "mob mentality", in the same way the laws of a democracy aren't to ensure the "rule of the majority" but instead to "protect the rights of the individual ... in light of the self-centered interests and power of the majority."

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 4:55 pm • link • report

Lance wrote:

If we only wanted to protect those structures where "most people" in the 'here and now' thought they were worthy of being preserved, we wouldn't need preservation laws. The opinons of the "majority" would ensure that in one way or another the structure didn't meet the wrecking ball.

I may or may not agree with the premise of your if...then statement, but even if we do accept that, the conclusion doesn't follow. Without HP laws, nothing stops a single property owner from tearing down a building that the majority, or even every single other resident, thinks is beautiful. The person in the Victorian townhouse across the street from me could decide to change her building into a modern, glass box and make my street start to look like this. Nobody could stop her.

I like my street the way it is, and whether it's the fashion of the moment or not, there is a subjective judgment there. I like it. So do most other people in Dupont. The majority supports keeping the Victorian townhouses as Victorian townhouses, and HP laws are the very way we do that.

by David Alpert on Oct 30, 2008 5:02 pm • link • report

David, your rowhouse (and mine) are still standing today because a small minority of people (i.e., not the majority) recognized their value at a time when the wrecking ball was obliterating like houses south of where ours are. HP laws promulgated by those who had the vision to understand that longterm most people would appreciate their beauty is what makes them available to us today. It's not the "majority of the neighborhood" from the epoch ... who would have seen them meet the same fate as most everything south of the area. 20/20 hindsight is easy. Being visionary is not.

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 6:22 pm • link • report

David, Clarification ... I wasn't referring to you (or me) in the "visionary" comment. What I meant was knowing what "over the longhaul" will be known as "beautiful" or "ugly" really takes someone with training. It takes someone who works with this stuff so much that they can see what others can't ... without time having gone by first. In this case, the experts have all said that the Third Church of Christ Scientist building is "beautiful" in their eyes. Chances are that 50 years from now, the average person will agree with them ... because these experts have the expertise in this field to be visionary. They know what makes a good example of a style of architecture and what doesn't. When I hear the ANC getting involved in this issue I wince because (despite my having sat in that position ... or perhaps 'because' of having sat in that position) I know that ANC positions on these matters must be dictated by politics, by what "the majority of the here and now" are saying ...

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 7:01 pm • link • report

Lance, I think there is an important distinction between "beautiful" and "historic" or worthy of designation.

I would not consider the Third Church to be beautiful, but under the legal guidelines, I would fathom that is is worthy of designation.

by Andrew on Oct 30, 2008 7:49 pm • link • report

Lance, unless these "experts" as you describe them can manage to demolish Notre Dame, St Peter's Basilica, St Paul's Cathedral, etc. I think people in fifty and one hundred years will still recognize good religious architecture and know that the Third Church isn't it. In fifty years, if by some accident this peccadillo of a church is still standing, people will recognize it as a stylistic dead end promoted by a few misguided ideologues.

I don't want to attack your particular tastes but these "experts" of yours seem no more competent to me than 18th century physicians who were deeply versed in a long, respected intellectual tradition that unfortunately happened to be complete rubbish. The church in question was the product of these "experts", it has been the object of praise by a coterie of the same and, beyond a small ideologically-defined elite, it remains deeply unpopular.

These experts have spent their entire careers nursing the blinkered notion that they would be compromised as artists if they produced a building which did not shock, irritate, annoy or otherwise "challenge" the tastes of the bourgeoisie. The problem is hardly that the public at large is unable to grasp the vision of these "experts" it's that they refuse to acknowledge the principles that underlie popular tastes.

As an aside, if your stylistic preferences actually did come into fashion outside of architecture schools, can you imagine what soulless wastelands our cities would be, full of buildings like the Third Church of Christ Scientist? Oh wait, have you ever been to Southwest DC...?

by Steve on Oct 30, 2008 9:47 pm • link • report

Steven, Earlier this year the Committee of 100 on the Federal City gave a Vision Award to Dr. Margaret Feldman.

Dr. Margaret Feldman spearheaded a number of major projects celebrating and giving focus to near Southwest Washington, DC. She had the visionary insight to understand and appreciate the “mid-century” architecture that was built under the Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA) and the potential impact this new development would have on other “mid-century” structures and developments in our SW community. She has done this through civic actions of the Southwest Neighborhood Assembly utilizing education, research, and community action to achieve these ends. That these accomplishments were done after an illustrious academic career at Ithaca College and service with her professional organization, National Council on Family Relations (NCFR), that one person, a senior, with passion and vision can serve and make a difference in their community.

So, I think it's becoming clear that you are confusing your personal tastes with "good taste". Your following sentence says it all:

"The problem is hardly that the public at large is unable to grasp the vision of these "experts" it's that they refuse to acknowledge the principles that underlie popular tastes."

McDonald's, Hardee's, etc. They all have the full support of "popular tastes". Does that make them "good" restaurants? Hardly. Actually, one would be hardpressed to even call them restaurants. A place to munch? Maybe. A place to get "restored" in the original sense of the word? No.

by Lance on Oct 30, 2008 10:28 pm • link • report

Lance,

I was going to wait till tomorrow morning to respond, but I couldn't help notice something: I referred to Notre Dame, St Paul's Cathedral and St Peter's Basilica as illustrative of popular tastes. You mentioned McDonald's and Hardee's, so which is which? Is Notre Dame a Royale with cheese?

by Steve on Oct 31, 2008 1:26 am • link • report

The Church is an integrated concrete mass and cannot support the the insertion of window openings structurally. Similarly, all but the most cosmetic changes to the interior cannot be supported, literally, by the structure.

In open letters, advocates for DCPL and Committee of 100 argue that Harriet Tregoning should recuse herself because her appointment, while completely within the Mayor's authority, "breaks with tradition". They do not mention the established tradition of not landmarking structures less that 50 years old or whose owners object (in fact, the National Park Service will not even consider a structure less than 50 years old for designation.

They also allege that Tregoning's appointment is a conflict of interest because she "works for the Mayor" (not surprising in a Mayor's agent, really). They neglect to point out that Tersh Boasberg, HPRB Chairman, was until very, very recently, a member of the Board of the Committee of 100.

Few people actually understand what this designation process does to the property owner. The property cannot be sold while a designation is pending because prospective buyers do not know what they can do with the building. The record shows that this landmark application was kept pending for 17 years (meaning, by the way, that DCPL sought to landmark it when it was about 30 years old). The landmark comes to be used as leverage with the owner as some not so pretty horsetrading takes place.

In the end, if a building is a public good, if you accept that thus building imparts public benefit, then there is a mechanism to secure that benefit for the public: eminent domain. The reason eminent domain is not used is that the public will not stand for such a use of funds or such aggressive state action. As a result, they impose the public cost on the private owner - in this case a downtown congregation that wishes to stay downtown - to achieve THEIR goals on the cheap. In the case of the Church, the local ANC UNANIMOUSLY opposed landmarking - the people who live there. Who are DCPL and C100 serving?

by Darik Elwan on Oct 31, 2008 6:21 am • link • report

Darik, You forgot to mention that at least one of the ANC commissioners may also have an apparent conflict of interest. He is a member of that congregation. Early on he contacted he to say he'd been asked by the church to see if he could persuade the C100 to drop the landmarking case. (He knew I was a member of the C100 and was calling to ask for a phone number.) As is too often the case in an ANC setting, a personal issue thus became a cause celebre for the entire commission. I.e., I wouldn't put too much store in the ANC 'unanimously' opposing landmarking.

by Lance on Oct 31, 2008 6:32 am • link • report

If that one ANC abstained or recused because of conflict of interest its still unanimous. Holding the landmark application for 17 years is grossly unjust.

by Bianchi on Oct 31, 2008 10:37 am • link • report

Bianchi, Why do you think the landmark application was "held"? It wasn't.

The consideration of the Landmark Application was delayed between 1991 and 2008 at the request of the church - not due to bureaucratic incompetency.

www.dcpreservation.org/thirdchurch.html

by Lance on Oct 31, 2008 11:35 am • link • report

On good authority, Tregoning is going to be replaced after the Council elections. The OP staff feels that she has shut down creative dialogue among the professionals and suppressed views that challenge her own. The Mayor also has been hearing a lot of pointed criticism of her from his supporters among the ANC ranks.

by Brutalist on Oct 31, 2008 8:45 pm • link • report

Boy, that would be very disappointing if true.

by William on Oct 31, 2008 9:53 pm • link • report