Comments on Citywide historic review is not the answer to ugly pop-ups - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by LuvDusty

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:09:29 EDT

You can not legislate taste. Taste is in the eye of the beholder. Also, what's beautiful changes over time. Quite quickly. When the pyramid in the Louvre was built only 20-25 years ago, people were up in arms about the destruction of the historical view of the Louvre. By now, it's just one of the iconic sights of Paris.

The same was true of the Eiffel Tower when it first was built and the George Pompidou Center (which I personally find an eyesore).

Personally, I find the 2nd pop-up example shown in the post to be just fine--it's the buildings around it that I find out of date and atrocious looking. Sometimes just because something is "old" doesn't make it better.

I agree with Jasper and others who advocate making the process LESS onerous and not MORE.

As far as I'm concerned, other than The Mall area, Georgetown, parts of Capitol Hill and Old Town...the rest of the city should be fair game.

If you own the property and are within existing zoning laws/codes, then go for it. Who knows? You may start a trend and transform the entire neighborhood!

Architecture, while it certainly deals with function as well as form, is after all, a visual art. It's very difficult to start placing judgement on the work without finding folks on both sides.

Comment by Mornin'

Mon, 28 May 2012 09:47:34 EDT

The photograph of the pop-up in Glover Park does not truly capture the dreadfulness. Although height on Wisconsin Avenue along this stretch is not itself a bad thing, the narrow building's awkward relationship with adjacent buildings and the street and the cheap looking materials torpedo it.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Sat, 26 May 2012 09:45:47 EDT

Richard- I like the way that Europeans have new construction that is sort of neutral architecture next to historic buildings, even as expansions. You never seen imitation there.

And around 11th and W in Northwest there are several beautiful new modernist buildings that look fine next to the Victorians. And you can tell what is historic. Not where new buildings try to out-Victorian the Victorians or make a grand Victorian mansion out of what was a simple house.
However, say in a row of identical Victorians where one was lost by fire I certainly can see doing a replica to restore the unified look.

Comment by Richard Layman

Sat, 26 May 2012 09:25:53 EDT

JustMe -- while I don't care that you don't read my stuff cause it's too long, I do care when points are misconstrued and improperly conveyed.

I don't care how big buildings are, just that they are in context. There's nothing wrong with a four story rowhouse-except when it is the only one on a block and from the standpoint of height and mass, isn't consistent with the era of significance.

I am fine with new construction, just not s***** design and quality.

My experiences working on these issues in the city are what led me to make the points I make.

Tom C. I think used the word pastiche. The problem comes from the fact that the Sec. of Interior guidelines say new construction should be new construction/new design. The problem with that is that it can be problematic/out of context, a point that Stephen Semes argues far better than I ever could. Except in rare instances, most new consruction with new designs doesn't work in historic districts.

There is some new construction of buildings designed to look old that is incredible. The rowhouses at 500, 502, 504, and maybe 506 (I don't remember) East Capitol St. NE are an example--the buildings are 10-12 years old. And while not incredible, EYA's buildings on the 1500? block of Independence Ave. SE are quite good. There are many decent examples across the city, they aren't cheap though. (There is also a lot of s***** examples, especially in the H St. neighborhood, on the 700 blocks of 8th and 10th St., arguably on the 700 block of 3rd St., definitely on the 800 block of 10th St., and huge oversize examples on the 1100 block of 5th and the 500 block of M St., oh and the horrid example of the Wylie Court Condominiums.)

In other places, there is a lot of new construction bungalows mostly but sometimes four square that are also truly excellent.

-- the building on M NE Street that is pre 1870 is in bad condition, it's light green still probably, towards 5th, on the north side of the block. It has a pitched roof. A similar building was on the 300 block of K St. but was torn down as part of the development of that intern apartment building (it didn't need to be, it was across the alley).

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Sat, 26 May 2012 01:53:02 EDT

Dizzy- The "in my back yard" part of NIMBY would be redundant if only the "not", ie negative, part mattered.

Historically the term referred to people who agreed that certain social things like halfway houses, drug rehab clinics, low-income housing, etc. were needed but were opposed to them being located close to them.

One DC oddity is today many of the developers who promote certain types of large buildings oppose them vigorously in their own neighborhoods. Another is many of the people who advocate for greater density live in multiple thousand square foot residences themselves.

People often are for something, until it affects them personally. The hypocrisy element of the slang is critical to make it different from just any disapproval of something.

Comment by Dizzy

Sat, 26 May 2012 00:02:11 EDT

Wow, typos all over the place on that one. Should be "slicing the salami a little thin." Also managed to mangle my own handle. For shame.

Comment by Dizzyactively

Fri, 25 May 2012 23:53:12 EDT

@Tom Coumaris

I think that's slicing the salami a little thing. Very few average citizens are actively and of their own initiative FOR some conceptual project or development, unless you stretch the definition so widely that it turns almost everyone into a NIMBY (I am vehemently in favor of having indoor plumbing and a sewage system, but I do not want Blue Plains in my back yard, and I suspect DAlpert doesn't either).

By the same token, however, average citizens are rarely AGAINST conceptual projects or developments either. I suspect one would be hard pressed to find, even in the most McMansion-y quarters of Kent and the Palisades, folks who are generally opposed to apartment buildings writ large, or to the very idea of mixed use buildings. In my experience, most of the folks who live in these areas are actually quite fond of places like Manhattan and Paris, and have no objection to them being the way they are. They just don't want this type of urban form in their backyard.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Fri, 25 May 2012 23:01:51 EDT

4. Please get this "NIMBY" term straight. It means someone who is (usually vehemently) FOR something, just not in their own "back yard".

It does not apply to people who are against something generally and it's frequent use that way is just dumb.
There's enough dumbness in the world.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Fri, 25 May 2012 22:53:11 EDT

1. There's nothing cumbersome about first-line historic review. I've been through it several times. It's just Google Earth street view they use at an extra desk at DCRA you have to go through when getting a permit.

2. There are awful pop-ups in historical districts. Except for Georgetown, historic preservation is a sham in DC. Mostly just saving a facade.

The rule on pop-ups in DC historic districts is that it can't be seen from street level. HPRB has interpreted that in it's strange wisdom to mean the actual street surface closest to a building's front. That is the view someone lying in the gutter would have.

We have butt ugly pop-ups in the 1500 blocks of S and Swann.

But they're not visible if you'relying in the gutter.

3. Architecture is most definitely an art(not that some local developers would ever know). It should be encouraged. While some infill of missing buildings in a row may be a valid argument for imitation to restore the character of a block, generally imitative architecture is just pastiche.

Comment by Kolohe

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:33:24 EDT

When you want to outlaw ugly buildings, they call you an urban planner, but when you want to outlaw ugly people, they call you a Nazi.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Fri, 25 May 2012 16:27:39 EDT

er... "toward the nature of architecture"

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Fri, 25 May 2012 16:02:23 EDT

I agree with Thayer - "an art," the way the Romans used ars. More poetic than "design" but not fine art. Excessive regulation and review will stymie the architecture, just as it stymies product design and advertising.

But you don't need to have a philosophical attitude toward the nature of attitude to oppose design review. Property rights and aesthetic subjectivity are recognized by the law already.

Comment by JustMe

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:26:17 EDT

What you end up with usually is a watered down version of the style which is like neutering the architect if you see architecture as an art.

Well, I don't see architecture as art, so lots of these things don't bother me too much. In these neighborhoods, form, harmony, and aesthetics are more important than an architect's personal artistic statements.

Layman generally goes into my "tl;dr" bucket.

But one of the objections to a lot of these popups or other developments ultimately comes across as a manifestation of "tall poppy syndrome." Some people have an inherent objection to the idea of one house being bigger than others or object to the idea that people want/need more space in a house, and the early 1900s-era houses are no longer sufficient for modern needs.

Comment by Thayer-D

Fri, 25 May 2012 13:46:36 EDT

"Would you like to keep your indoor facilities in 1900-1940 style?" What does that have to to with exterior appearances?

@ Layman,
"Anyway, with regard to Jasper's comment, design isn't in fact "subjective," Design is always subjective, or else our streets would all look the same. "In most neighborhoods this period and the types of architecture represented tends to be pretty clear...The design recommendations flow from those determinations and therefore aren't merely "aesthetic"."

I can see that working in theory, but the HPRB has a confilicted view of context. On the one hand they want things to not be copies of historic styles and on the other hand they don't want something incompatible. What you end up with usually is a watered down version of the style which is like neutering the architect if you see architecture as an art. I'll throw my lot in with the form based code, like exists in so many historic communities in Europe.

Comment by andrew

Fri, 25 May 2012 13:42:06 EDT

with a handful of pre-1870 examples, most of which are gone--there is one on the 500 block of M St. NE. Etc.

Just out of curiosity, which one is that? That block's got a pretty diverse smattering of various architectural styles.

Comment by Richard Layman

Fri, 25 May 2012 13:31:57 EDT

Actually, I think you could even cover "appropriate" expansions with a form based code in a manner that I would be happy with.

So MOR would be for the prevailing height. But administrative review could be done for additions that conform with FBC guidelines developed for each architectural style.

Plans that don't fully conform/don't conform would be kicked up to a review committee.

But this isn't about endless process, it's about adding review procedures to a system that is pretty f*ed up with inadequate regulations now.

Comment by Alex B.

Fri, 25 May 2012 13:04:00 EDT

Neil,

A very limited form-based code might be a better solution. Basic stuff that can be interpreted well by architects, rather than a straightjacket.

Word.

The more limited the use provisions are, too, the better.

Comment by Alex B.

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:59:00 EDT

A few comments:

1. That first pop-up is indeed awful, but what's so bad about the Glover Park one? Just because it's taller than the surrounding buildings? I don't buy that. It's one thing to have a pop-up ruin the rhythm of a contiguous and uniform row, but that's not what was there in the Glover Park case. Taller heights with some variation on the roofline is perfectly acceptable.

I can't tell if that's supposed to be a garage on the first level - if so, that is indeed bad. But that's not a problem of pop-ups.

2. The gist of this piece is spot on - adding endless process won't solve anything and will in fact make things a lot worse.

We need to allow the city to grow - the demand is there. There are two key elements to the zoning regulations. One is content (that is, what you are allowed to build, with various provisions and conditions and exceptions) and the other is process; the kinds of things you need to do in order to get your permits approved.

It's unfortunate that to achieve the best results, we often require the most process. More process is more onerous on the builder/developer, and that means more cost.

Ideally, there would be a way to make the 'right' outcomes (knowing that's a moving target) the ones that have the easiest path - that is, the easiest way to approvals (by right) would be to do a project that meets the stated goals. Don't make the good projects jump through extra hoops.

3. Simply tightening down the administration of historic preservation design review would help a great deal. Concerns about someone's view from their private land, as in the Exxon case, ought to be dismissed out of hand.

Comment by MJ

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:54:13 EDT

I propose a zoning czar, a benevolent dictator of sorts to shut down all the loud-mouth NIMBYs. See, e.g., the Hine debacle.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:45:16 EDT

Also, I'd give the system 5 years before the board is hijacked by NIMBYs and developers, with some doofus appointed by nepotism on the last day of the previous administration.

Comment by Richard Layman

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:43:40 EDT

Bert, Jasper -- almost without exception, any new project I see in neighborhoods without design review is total s***. That's been my experience since I have been heavily involved in local land use issues, since around 2000.

That's why I feel pretty comfortable with the recommendations I made. And today's aesthetic concerns are irrelevant to "yesterday's designs" and the prevailing architectural character of neighborhoods (despite the Sec. of Interior's guidelines, cf. Stephen Semes). If you want to do some wacked crazy s***, go do it in a place with "the right" architectural traditions. I covered all that in my piece.

Ellen -- we are going to have to disagree about how to implement the change I propose, not design review in general, but the change in MOR provisions for building additions to _extant housing_. The rule needs to be instituted now, not neighborhood by neighborhood, and take years to be enacted.

A couple interns even could go around and figure this out for every block face. E.g., in my area--say from Missouri Ave. to say Piney Branch, and Georgia Avenue and Blair, the height should be two stories max., with a set bulk and treatment of dormers, etc.

In the rowhouse neighborhoods most blocks would allow 2 stories, some would also allow 3 stories depending on the prevailing height.

Better to make provisions for opting out rather than opting in.

You know better than I do, how when you give people an inch they take 10 miles. Too many opportunities to f* things up.

This is something I feel very strongly about, having seen so many deleterious examples.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:43:23 EDT

A very limited form-based code might be a better solution. Basic stuff that can be interpreted well by architects, rather than a straightjacket.

The reason the HPO and the HPRB exist is precisely because there is a level of expertise regarding design that requires some consideration, rather than a simple checklist. "Style" is often a nebulous or even mistaken category. This ensures that the architect also has some latitude. The same need is why we have building inspectors and the BZA - specific conditions add complications that require exception.

On the other hand, it's not that bad to have stylistic diversity, if the architects consider the site.

Change. It's OK sometimes.

Comment by Bert

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:23:00 EDT

It is instructive to look across the river at the insanity that historic review boards can inflict on the citizens they are supposed to be serving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/when-historic-preservation-interferes-with-modern-preferences/2011/08/05/gIQAikz50I_story.html

For those who are not now subject to this kind of thing, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:15:21 EDT

@ Richard Layman:design isn't in fact "subjective,"... my neighborhood which dates from probably 1900 to 1940... The design recommendations flow from those determinations and therefore aren't merely "aesthetic".

Yes it is. It's not 1900-1940 anymore. Building has developed. Styles have come and gone. Technology has been improved. Why freeze a neighborhood in the time it was built? Would you like to keep your indoor facilities in 1900-1940 style? If not, then why would you want to keep the outside frozen in that time frame?

What if the collective "objective" consensus would be that the 1900-40s were a terribly ugly period? Would you then recommend wiping out an entire neighborhood? What if it's decided 50 years from now, that that building style is pretty again?

the point that X makes about a form based code is a good solution, mediating between your position and mine.

I think that's also pretty much what I proposed. I am not opposed to building codes and zoning rules. I understand you don't want 15-floor single lot glass-buildings in Georgetown. However, if zoning allows for an extra floor, home-owners should be allowed to build their floor. And if they want to paint their home in a different color, they should not have to apply with 4 boards and committees.

My point is that a lot of the rules governing these aestetic boards are massively stacked against the home-owner. That is ridiculous.

BTW: HOA rules should be rolled in there as well.

Comment by Eric Fidler

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:06:38 EDT

Neighbors use the historic preservation design review process to object to the size of the project rarely out of any genuine concern for the preservation of the neighborhood's historic character but rather because they simply just don't like the project.

Yes, I see this happen pretty frequently in the U Street Historic District. Someone recently objected to a rear, third-floor addition because the new resident would be able to peer into his yard from the third floor. That is not a matter of historic preservation. These sorts of objections often lead to a chaotic, inconsistent process that makes religious edicts look like scientific rationality.

Comment by Ellen McCarthy

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:03:02 EDT

I agree with you and with Richard Layman that this is a problem. Throughout the Comp Plan process, we heard from many neighborhoods, especially rowhouse districts, about how poorly designed "pop-ups" had ruined the rhythm of their blocks. However, I also think that citywide design review could be problematic from the point of view of resources and creating uncertainty in the residential markets. People need to have some certainty whether or not they can build another floor.

The proposed new zoning regulations have suggested a way to handle this. The code would allow neighborhoods to ask the Zoning Commission to alter individual dimensions of the zoning, such as height or number of floors, in order to protect neighborhood character, somewhat like an overlay does now. Richard is critical that new code would enact the ability to do this now, but it would have to be effectuated by the individual neighborhoods later.

While I agree that this is not ideal, the length of time required by the zoning rewrite, and the resulting uncertainty have created a lot of angst, with much misinformation being pedaled to alarm residents about alleged neighborhood-destroying provisions. To drag it out further by making OP go and do an assessment of each neighborhood to design in the appropriate restrictions would not be worth the delay. I'm intrigued by Richard's suggestion of the Nashville approach, and will certainly read up on that. In this case, though, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The new code is designed to permit much tailoring of the regs to recognize that one size does not fit all. Let's go with what has been proposed, but start thinking creatively about how we supplement that to permit homeowners the flexibility to expand their units to meet their needs, but in a way that doesn't destroy the property values and appeal of their neighbors' units.

Comment by Richard Layman

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:57:58 EDT

Hmm. I always joke that when I read something in a blog that I violently disagree with that I end up doing a post that excoriates it. You didn't blister me, thanks...

Anyway, with regard to Jasper's comment, design isn't in fact "subjective," at least the standard for comparison isn't, as it's based on the period of architectural significance and prevailing architectural styles for that time. In most neighborhoods this period and the types of architecture represented tends to be pretty clear, e.g., in my neighborhood which dates from probably 1900 to 1940 with architectural styles primarily being four square, bungalow, and Colonial Revival. (Obviously, in the H St. neighborhood it's from the mid 1870s to 1920 and are Italianate and Queen Anne style brick rowhouses for the most part, with a smattering of 2nd empire, plus porch front Craftsman style rowhouses from 1907-1920, plus wood frame Italianate rowhouses from before 1880, with a handful of pre-1870 examples, most of which are gone--there is one on the 500 block of M St. NE. Etc.)

The design recommendations flow from those determinations and therefore aren't merely "aesthetic".

Anyway/2, the issue on which we disagree is about design review, although I am the first to admit that you are right to focus on the practical, while I was mostly writing about the theoretical.

I do agree that design review is necessary, especially for blocks that really mattered, as I've argued here, with regard to an issue in the Capitol Hill Historic District: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-you-dont-know-can-make-for-flawed.html

Anyway/3, the point that X makes about a form based code is a good solution, mediating between your position and mine.

Having code-based "design guidelines" for each housing type would simplify any review process, and provide early guidance to property owners--guidance that isn't provided now and clearly is desperately needed.

I have actually seen a couple of popups that aren't completely terrible...

Anyway/4, one of the problems with my writing is that it is a kind of "stream of consciousness" sometimes as I work through the issue, my ideas, response, and practical recommendations for implementation. That is true of the piece that you are reacting to.

I think that my recommendation about creating block by block "standards" about height, and changing the zoning code to make the prevailing heights the matter of right standards is the best solution for this problem.

That was the conclusion of the piece.

I'm glad that you wrote about this though, because it brings more attention to the general issue, and this potential solution of re-setting matter of right standards with regard to house size in neighborhoods where for the most part, most lots have been built out.

Maybe with this kind of attention we can get these kinds of changes made. (Change does happen, it just takes a long time.)

Comment by charlie

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:51:02 EDT

I don't understand. Aren't pop-ups better for density?

Comment by Paulus

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:47:33 EDT

In my experience for "pop-ups" and additions that require zoning relief, OP typically does provide cursory input on "compatibility" of materials and massing when it comes to reports to the BZA on Special Exceptions and Variances, but it's pretty weak tea. And an area the BZA is understandably reluctant to wade into.

Comment by JustMe

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:34:46 EDT

That second example isn't so bad.

This should all be addressed, a X said, with form-based codes. The problem in the first example isn't the fact that it is tall-- the problem is that it doesn't blend well with the form of the original building. If it were a two-story brick pop-up that fit cleanly onto the original house, I wouldn't have a complaint.

The thing is that the specifications should be clear, allowing an architect and contractor to draw up the plans for a pop-up using the guidelines in a "by right" manner, and get started on them.

The purpose of a review board should be to make sure the guidelines are being followed, not to offer their own architectural input or that of "the community."

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:32:46 EDT

@ Dizzy:I'm going to channel Thayer-D here and suggest that it is precisely the ones with "proper training" who are the worst offenders.

I guess that only fuels their self-importance. I'm also thinking that the term 'proper training' is often loosely used. A 30 year old BA in architecture does not count, neither does a REMAX membership card.

Comment by Dizzy

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:21:55 EDT

@Jasper

I'm going to channel Thayer-D here and suggest that it is precisely the ones with "proper training" who are the worst offenders. I'm looking at you, Edwin Schlossberg (aka Mr. Caroline Kennedy) and Witold Rybczynski.

Comment by X

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:13:58 EDT

Isn't this what a form based code is supposed to address?

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:10:58 EDT

Georgetown's proposed athletic training facility are a perfect case in point.

Don't even get me started on that BS. That thing won't be visible from off campus. So why anybody other that GU itself has a say about its looks is beyond any sense.

I wonder what goes on in the mind of these people, often without proper training, that they know best can only be sheer arrogance and self-importance.

Comment by Thayer-D

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:08:51 EDT

Adding another layer of review to an already onerous process seems crazy. We ought to be encouraging development, not hindering it. On the other hand, these pop-ups are crazy looking. Maybe we could have some pre-designed solutions for pop-ups that in historic districts, one would need to follow. Since pop-ups are about the owner wanting more square footage and not aesthetics, these thoughtfull solutions could take the risk out of having these additions ruining streetscapes for the wider communitee while allowing for the organic growth of some of our lower scaled town house heighborhoods.

Comment by Dizzy

Fri, 25 May 2012 10:56:26 EDT

Presumably, a city-wide historic review wouldn't be so objectionable if the people in charge of said review actually stuck to considerations of historical sensitivity and neighborhood context instead of entertaining a litany of complaints from the "preserve it in amber!" contingent.

Worse, even if there are no neighborhood complaints, bodies like OGB/CFA often take it upon themselves to play SimArchitect. As you and I have discussed before, TM, the criticism by these boards of Georgetown's proposed athletic training facility are a perfect case in point. You've got complaints that it's too big (even though it is much smaller than the mammoth SW Quad immediately next to the site); that it doesn't look like a gym because it's not "a great big box" which is what a gym is supposed to be; that there are too many windows; that there are not enough windows; that the windows aren't of the right type; that there's too much ornamentation; etc. etc. Only a tiny part of the discussion centered on context, with concerns expressed that the new building would overshadow and swallow up the 1950s gym next door.

And that's before we get to all the issues with preference/bias for certain firms and contractors and so on.

If these bodies actually did their job as intended, perhaps giving them authority over a wider area would make more sense.

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 25 May 2012 10:54:21 EDT

To put every design change up to a board is insane. This is Washington, Capital of the land of the free, not some conformist communist country. Property rights are constitutionally strong here. People should be able to do with their property as they see fit, as long as it fits within building and zoning codes.

I'd propose to get rid of all these subjective boards, and just allow people to build according to the building zone codes. There is a democratic process of changing those (see MoCo). And you could fold truly historic preservation in there.

I am getting sick and tired of NIMBYs stopping all progress in the name of faux historic preservation.

As for the atrocious examples. You can not legislate taste. Taste is in the eye of the beholder. Also, what's beautiful changes over time. Quite quickly. When the pyramid in the Louvre was built only 20-25 years ago, people were up in arms about the destruction of the historical view of the Louvre. By now, it's just one of the iconic sights of Paris.

It is ridiculous that when people want to build an extra floor on their own house, they need to submit themselves to a smörgåsbord of board full of self-important unaccountable people that think that they know better. This is the ultimate example of big government getting in the way of people's business.

Comment by William

Fri, 25 May 2012 10:30:47 EDT

I would submit that a solution would be to send any size variance to BZA and any design variance to HPO. HPO could apply a lesser standard that would conform to predetermined (by whatever overlay might be created) neighborhood archtype. HPO would have sign-off ability and not have the authority to send any case to the HPRB.

Good article and yes, that pop-up has to be one of the worst in the United States.