Comments on Park View community battles over preserving church - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by goldfish

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:19:46 EDT

Nice article, Mr Alpert.

It seems to me that HPRB has enough information to come to a decision: (1) most of the facade has been changed and (2) the owner is against it.

It is scary that any non-owning, johnny-come-lately can submit an application to HPRB and hold up renovations for a given property for YEARS. Presume that a given property is for sale: a losing bidder (with bad intent) could submit an application, and then use that as leverage in the price negotiations. Such as situation could quickly get very twisted, with lawyers and the HPRB and bidders, great expense, lost time and uncertainty, and a lot of evil gaming.

Comment by Thayer-D

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 05:21:31 EDT

This is why the Office of Preservation needs a lesser catagory of preservation. A designation that would protect facades without the prohibitive standards on replacement windows or where nothing can be done when visible from a public right of way, especially when we have alleys everywhere. Think of the century's of rehabilitation in Rome whereby all sorts of historic shells where rehabilitated and added to in a sympathetic way. This would also entail changing the way some architects and preservationists go on about how any additions need to be clearly differentiated from the original structure. Why add this layer of ideological nonsence to how best to re-use this fabric? This building could actually accept another 5 stories easily, at least from the perspective of an architect who loves to build sympathetically, something which many residents would probably welcome, if it gave them flexability on choices they'd have with their property. As the city's evolution speeds up, it's all the more imperative they act now before we loose a lot of fabric in areas like Georgia Avenue.

As for the racial/gentrification angle...
"Groover... said he staged the protest because he thinks his church's struggle is emblematic of a larger battle taking place in the District between longtime residents and new ones in gentrifying neighborhoods. At stake, he asserts, is the ability of churches to continue to exist in parts of the city."
First, how is designating this church threatening it's ability to exist? The only negative I can see is they would loose the potential profit from not being able to re-build the site with a bigger building like the concrete bunker at 16th and I street, but that's true of all designated sites (in theory at least). Secondly, there is no struggle between the new residents and older ones, at least there shouldn't be. It's a free country, and anybody's allowed to move in where they like, even though some old timers feel threatened. How many times have old city neighborhoods turned over differing populations?

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:44:33 EDT

sorry, The "Tear it down because it was originally white" argument almost disposed of the Tivoli Theater and did take down the magnificent old 2nd Church of Christ building at 15th & S NW.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:39:24 EDT

BTW- More than a little mau-mauing going on here. The pastor is from Georgia and his wife is from South Carolina. A majority of the congregation lives in the suburbs. Retaining the tin cornice would have been cheaper than the foam and stucco replacement. We've heard the old "tear down the More a matter of personal taste than additional financial burden.

chutzpah

Comment by TM

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:52:14 EDT

@dan

That's precisely my point. Land use should be governed by OP and the Zoning Com. not HPO.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:10:58 EDT

Existing permits or not I'd be appalled if someone could tear down, in whole or part, a building while it's being considered for historic nomination.

Neither would I have any sympathy for anyone who would rush to do so because they are aware of potential nomination. We've seen bulldozers-at-midnight all too often in the past.

Comment by Dan Miller

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:18:31 EDT

@TM--otoh, preservation might not be the best way to prevent an unsightly and inefficient parking lot from being built on the land. After all, that would lock the parcel into its current pattern, and discourage new building in a densifying area.

Comment by William

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:13:03 EDT

I think the point is that a pending landmark nomination, no matter how old, can out a stay on any new permits for exterior work, demolition and the like.

Comment by Tanya Washington-Stern, DC Office of Planning

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:37:48 EDT

I am posting on behalf of the DC Office of Planning and the Historic Preservation Office. This post states that the landmark nomination prevents the church from obtaining any permits for work until a decision is made by HPRB. Only new permit applications are affected by a nomination; existing permits are not affected. In this particular instance, the church has done and continues to do a substantial amount of exterior work on the building, all under existing permits they have in hand. We have not been told about any additional permits needed for the planned work. Please note that this case is still scheduled for an HPRB hearing on Nov. 29th.

Comment by TM

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:20:23 EDT

I think it's really telling that in the two quotes from pastors about what problems a historic designation would bring they mention parking. In other words, they won't let us tear down our building to add surface parking.

That seems to be a separate problem than the loss of historic properties. Buildings that literally face a metro station shouldn't be adding any surface parking regardless of the historic merit of the property. It certainly is a larger loss if a genuinely historic building is torn down for parking, but the bigger problem is that any building would be torn down for that.

I think Boese was wrong to not even give the church a say before filing the application. It plays right into the worst newcomer stereotype. But that doesn't mean he's wrong on the merits necessarily. This should be a question the SHPO should be able to answer even without consensus. Is this building worth saving? Yes or no. Any peripheral issues should not come into that decision.

But in the meantime, OP should make it very difficult for any building owner to construct surface parking within blocks of a metro, regardless of the age or merit of the building.