"by a large glass window that, like a tent opening, says, 'this is shelter.'"

I look at that and it tells me "this is a green house, and it will cost a fortune to keep it comfortable."

Really, this doesn't look like a church. It looks like the Air and Space Museum.

by Reid on Mar 10, 2010 1:17 pm • link • report

I was actually thinking it looked like a museum cafeteria.

by James on Mar 10, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report

Pretty ugly, if you ask me. Seems strange they'd leave the facade standing for 40 years after the fire only to get rid of it when they finally rebuild.

by jc on Mar 10, 2010 1:27 pm • link • report

I look at that and it tells me "this is a green house, and it will cost a fortune to keep it comfortable."

Yes -- and it looks like it will be absolutely miserable in summer. Even if you pump the air conditioning high enough to cover for the greenhouse from the glass ceiling and the huge window-walls, you're still inflicting the merciless noonday sun on the heads of the worshippers.

by Taeyoung on Mar 10, 2010 1:29 pm • link • report

The description from Jarvis is tiresome poetic license, it's a cubical building with walls, a roof and an entrance. Besides which, you could apply it to any cube shaped building, regardless of its purpose.

by Steve on Mar 10, 2010 1:47 pm • link • report

Totally agree with Steve. This is ugly by any standard. That used to be a beautiful oasis, until some landscape architect got their hands on it and over designed it.

Now they're going to get a Mussolini (EUR) meets the Air and Space Museum? The immediate surroundings of this site posess some of DC's most beautiful architecture. It's a shame more architects don't go straight for beauty as if it's some superficial applique, as if it some how demeans the intellectual muscle of there creations. If musicians did that we'd all be listening to tone deaf music, or not.

If this architect spent as much time designing something worthy of this site rather than writting the prose he'd use to "explain" it, he might actually deserve to use the tired jewel box metaphore. Oh well...

by Thayer-D on Mar 10, 2010 2:15 pm • link • report

I like it, and find the roof and other glass elements gorgeous, but obviously the same questions come to mind re: maintaining comfort throughout the seasons.

by Joel Lawson on Mar 10, 2010 2:16 pm • link • report

Ignoring the quality of the design, this concept hardly fits in the Dupont Circle Historic District. And if the congregation needs more space, it appears to me that there are several underutilized church structures within a few blocks.

by Dan Gamber on Mar 10, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report

My first thought is how unwelcoming this appears--with concrete extending to the end of the 18th street property line, it seems stark and cold. I agree that it is unfortunate that the design doesn't seem to include the remaining piece of the church destroyed by arson. As a resident of the 1700 block of Church Street, I prefer the park or a design that doesn't occupy the entire space. How about adding an underground (and unseen) parking garage so Church Street doesn't fill up with meeting-goers during the week and parishoners on Sundays?

by susan on Mar 10, 2010 2:47 pm • link • report

A glass box is a glass box is a glass box. I definitely am underwhelmed.

I find it fascinating how the 1970 post-arson structure resembles the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche in Berlin. Frankly, if I were redesigning this church, I'd want something in the same idiom as the original - even perhaps evoking the post-arson structure, to serve as a reminder of the struggles of the LGBT community.

by Craig on Mar 10, 2010 2:51 pm • link • report

It's pretty enough, but the congregation will regret building it due to maintenance costs and cooling costs. Good concept, but needs some refining.

by dcseain on Mar 10, 2010 3:07 pm • link • report

My first reaction was "they mustn't have much money to spend." Flat, precast concrete walls have got to be the cheapest way to build a fairly large enclosed space for something like a church sanctuary. The glass roof looks like an (ineffective) attempt to dress it up a bit without breaking the budget.

Raising a large capital budget from a small parish is tough. I wish them well, but I also hope they find a way to build something that doesn't look like it belongs in an industrial park.

by c5karl on Mar 10, 2010 3:10 pm • link • report

I disagree with susan, I support a structure covering the entirety of the building, and building a parking garage would only encourage people to drive-- instead of walk, bike, bus, or metro.

That said, this would clearly be the ugliest building on one of the prettiest blocks in the city.

by Alex on Mar 10, 2010 3:12 pm • link • report

Really lovely, and would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Historic neighborhoods need a variety of building styles to continue their tradition of neighborhood vitality.

by Christopher on Mar 10, 2010 3:31 pm • link • report

@ Christopher,
I don't think a variety in styles is the issue as much as how minimal and spare it is. What seems to unify all the disparate traditional styles is their use of natural materials, rythem, proportion, and what seems to be a desire to please aesthetically (for better or worse).

Granted modernism at times makes a fetish out of being minimal and abstract, but this building takes it to the point of seeming cold and barren. Show a bit of love, especially from a church!

by Thayer-D on Mar 10, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report

While I kinda like it, I too can't understand how the alter is not being incorporated into the structure? unless maybe it's just not being shown in the concept drawing? I mean, what's the point of doing this glass canopy over the site ... if you have nothing on the site to 'cover'? (I.e., unless there's something really nice to look at inside ... with the exception of the folks there praying ... there's no purpose for this glass 'enclosement' ... One should just try to build something more inspired by what was there before the fire (while not trying to recreate it since you can rarely really recreate with accuracy.) But I'll look forward to seeing final drawings and an explanation of where the alter went before I pass judgement.

by Lance on Mar 10, 2010 4:01 pm • link • report

i would love to see some way to incorporate the eastern wall into the building.

as far as heating and cooling costs—you can purchase glass that reacts to the amount of sunlight hitting it, causing it to "dim" and let less light through. the new bike station at union station has this feature.

there are technological ways to avoid this being a greenhouse. i think this is a concern (that clearly many people have) which can be written off pretty quickly.

by IMGoph on Mar 10, 2010 4:15 pm • link • report

Oh look, a glass box. How inspiring! How creative!

What bullshit. Whoever said it looks like a cafeteria was being overly generous. It's not just ugly, it's actively hostile to the preservation of the existing ruins - why keep them there only to cover them up with big blank panels?

I live a few blocks up 17th Street. I don't have any objection to rebuilding on the site, but how about we ignore the Swiss-trained artist and his vision of painting a square on a blank slate and instead get someone interested in designing something for the community. You know, a building that actually functions well as a church and that normal people actually like.

If money is a problem, I would like to see them make a deal with a developer for a mixed use building. If they could make it work in Clarendon, they can make it work in DC.

by BeyondDC on Mar 10, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report

This church rolls something out every few years about building anew, but it never seems to happen.

by Old Timer on Mar 10, 2010 4:52 pm • link • report

Isn't demanding that a church "look like a church" reliant on a tautology? Precedents are very useful, but it shouldn't exclude typological differences. Maybe we should make all churches look like basilicas, as that was what a church looked like until the Greeks, French, Russians, Lutherans, and Puritans messed up the form. Everyone's entitled to their opinions of aesthetics, but this argument doesn't hold water.

Likewise with the glass roof. I'd like to know what the insulation problems are. There are definitely solutions to make it more than comfortable. With a double roof, it might be possible to cool the building naturally. The big glass wall is on the north side, which is a perfect place for natural, ambient lighting.

I think the interior is comfortable and attractive, and the front has a nice, clear entrance. It maintains the streetwall wit proportions that match the area. The front is boring, but I say revise before abandoning this design. I'd like to see more integration of the old building, but it was rather hideous.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 10, 2010 5:47 pm • link • report

>Isn't demanding that a church "look like a church" reliant on a tautology?

No.

Churches have a distinct look for the same reason city halls and state capitols have one. As buildings of special community importance it is appropriate to be visually monumental. These are the places that constitute the civic and emotional heart of the community, so they should be given a visual place of honor.

You can change the distinct look and that's just fine, but you can't treat special buildings as if they're typical ones. Churches should look like churches because making them look like cafeterias dishonors them as centers of community, and by extension dishonors the community. You can honor them differently than past generations, but you still have to honor them.

So it's not so much that churches should look like churches as it is that churches should NOT look like office buildings.

by BeyondDC on Mar 10, 2010 5:58 pm • link • report

What does a cafeteria look like? Why is that bad?

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 10, 2010 6:13 pm • link • report

Perhaps more importantly, you do realize that there are many churches that fit into the fabric with relatively humble structures. There are a number of Renaissance and early 20th century precedents from places where space is precious and other buildings can overwhelm the church.

The front façade is plenty monumental, if spare, but not an independent object. As I said above, embellishing the front would improve the building, but it does not have to fulfill the conventional, and tautological, definition of what a church looks like.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 10, 2010 6:28 pm • link • report

I don't think it is a particularly inspired design but I believe the congregation is right not to try to recreate the former church. This is an historic district, not a static district and our goal should be to preserve the existing structures, not to build a theme park of the past.

by Iris Molotsky on Mar 10, 2010 7:05 pm • link • report

What is with all of the damn glass buildings when will this trend end; I'm so sick of being able to see inside of someones office or home because they live in a glass building and don't have blinds/curtains.

by kk on Mar 10, 2010 7:06 pm • link • report

Uh, what happened to the the other two concepts found on the website, "Concept Version 1" and "Concept Version 3?" Both of those are better than the one presented here, particularly Version 1 which creatively incorporates the "ruins" into an inspiring modern design which still evokes a more classical church.

Anybody else think these two designs are better?

by Erik W on Mar 10, 2010 8:01 pm • link • report

What's with this glass box trend is they keep training architects to think we're supposed to live this way because they don't cut stone blocks anymore. I'm so tired of the "theme park" argument. Where is that argument when the Renaisance revived the classicism of antient Rome? For that matter almost every American architectural style is a revival of some sorts, so my guess is all of DuPont Circle with it's neo-Georgian, Romanesque, etc. is one big Disney Park? How about the millionth Meisian glass box? No sale.

Architects are brainwashed this puritanical bs in school and the ones too afraid to acknowledge that keep up selling this argument, lest they be found holding worthless tech stocks. I wouldn't care what these architects think except for the fact that they keep "designing" and dehumanizing the build environment.

Right up the street at R and 18th there's a modern infil building that no one would mistake for an old building, yet it manages to fit in beautifully with out being historicist (if that's your hang up). And how the hell's another glass box not "taugological"?

by Thayer-D on Mar 10, 2010 8:07 pm • link • report

"And how the hell's another glass box not "taugological"?

I'm not talking about style. It's tautological if the argument used is, "well that's what we've been doing lately, so we have to do it here too. You know I don't universally like all-glass structures. But this is hardly a glass box.

I do agree with Erik W, both versions online are much more artful and attractive.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 10, 2010 8:34 pm • link • report

The present open space is a much more valuable neighborhood space than another rarely used church building. Why in the world does the neighborhood or even the city need another largely unused church space?

by Gerald Schwinn on Mar 10, 2010 10:18 pm • link • report

I saw more detailed concept drawings tonight at the ANC meeting. I'm glad to see it incorporates the existing altar wall ... which I learned was only 1 of 4 such walls in the church before it burnt. (The church was in the shape of a cross, and each of these altar walls must have been altars for side chapels like you find in cathedrals. The main altar was undoubtedly in the center of the church where the 4 vaults of the church met ... as in St. Peter's in Rome.) The concepts pics show the church for the stunning architectural piece it is. On the 18th St side they've put the stone wall because that is the 'urban' side while on the Church St side they've put in the more welcoming glass wall we see posted above. I think on the alley side they've also put in a solid wall of some sort ... and, in any case, that seems to be the (sole) altar wall of the worship space. VERY VERY well done. The only criticism I'd have is that the former church in that space was much higher, much grander. This one seems to almost bow to the neighborhood. The architect even said something about matching the scale of the neighborhood. That is a big mistake. Churches are supposed to be monumental. They're supposed to be tall. They're supposed to be overshadowing everything around them ... Especially if they are meant to represent a rebuilding of a church that did all this. I'd recommend doubling the height in some manner ... Even if it was just a large steeple of some 'modern' sort added to the existing design. Isn't that what the puritans did in New England? They didn't have the money to build grand, but wow didn't they build their white steepled churches high!

by Lance on Mar 10, 2010 10:44 pm • link • report

Episcopalians don't change their minds about something and tear it down in a generation. We enshrine it as tradition at once and get upset if anybody wants to change it! As they say, how many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb? A dozen: one to change the bulb, and eleven to say how much they preferred the OLD bulb!

by Bob Van Keuren on Mar 10, 2010 11:02 pm • link • report

I love it. Cities are meant to change. That is what makes the urban landscape exciting.

Preservation does not equal keeping things the same always. There are PLENTY of traditionally designed churches (the Methodist one around the block for example). I am sure that keeping the old one (i.e. not being a victim of arson) was the first option. I think this is a laudable second one.

by Scott on Mar 10, 2010 11:14 pm • link • report

While I appreciate that you took content from the video I produced (but have not officially released), many of your readers would be better served by seeing the video and hearing the whole story in context, once it is released (which will be very soon).

Your screen grabs from our video are small and do not do the new design justice. It is not "pre-poured" slabs of concrete. It is stone. The glass windows are not at street level. The ruins of the old altar wall ARE incorporated into the new design.

The ground was consecrated when we built our original building in the 1890s. No arson could undo the sacredness of the ground. It is not just a neighborhood park for people to walk their dogs and let them do their business there.

We want to build a new church on this sacred site that builds on the resilience and faith of generations of parishioners who have called this church their sanctuary. We think this design embodies that vision and that mission: to be a sanctuary where all are welcome to find and be found by God.

To everyone who thinks that our church is another largely unused space: please come and visit! Experience the vibrancy of our community for yourself. You will understand why we are growing and why we invite you to grow with us.

by Christopher on Mar 10, 2010 11:40 pm • link • report

@ Neil,
You're right, it isn't a glass box and the other schemes are more interesting, but whether it's original or not I think is besides the point. We live in an aesthetically eclectic period and have ever since world travel and the printing press took off. It would be nice, what ever style the architect chose, if they where at least a bit cognisent of the immediate environment. That building could be popped down anywhere. We insist on some manners between people, why can't we strive for some urban civility in buildings?

by Thayer-D on Mar 11, 2010 8:18 am • link • report

That building could be popped down anywhere.

So could a gothic mishmash! They've done it before, on this very site.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 11, 2010 8:40 am • link • report

I love how everyone in this city, but most especially neighborhoods like Dupont, thinks they can tell a private organization what to do with their own privately owned property. Just what right is it of ours to go telling that church that their design is ugly and we won't have it built? No! This is America, they own that land and they should be able to build whatever pretty or ugly building they chose on it. This is the same kind of BS argument that everyone had against the Christian Science church downtown when they wanted to raise their hideous fortress-like building. Why must DC residents be such control freaks over this kind of stuff?! Don't you all have a life to attend to?!

by Matt on Mar 11, 2010 9:02 am • link • report

I look forward to the release of more information (video, site plan, etc.). My personal concern is, what happens to the labyrinth? It's the only one in the city available 24/7 and is itself a sacred space for those who use it.

by Sue on Mar 11, 2010 9:50 am • link • report

It's stunning, but not in a good way. It's stunning in the way that makes you scratch your head and think, "Someone liked that design? Enough to pay millions for it? Oh my Christ, what were they thinking? That church is horrendous." As a congregation that dealt with arson, you'd think they'd want to avoid dealing with hooligans who might think that throwing a brick into their glass house would be funny.

by Allie on Mar 11, 2010 10:17 am • link • report

There's a reason they call it International style. But at least "the front has a nice, clear entrance." Wow, talk about lowered expectations!

"It maintains the streetwall wit proportions that match the area."

Wit proportions like those, who needs decorashuns.

by Thayer-D on Mar 11, 2010 11:23 am • link • report

After hearing about the ANC meeting from a friend, I decided to come look at the images on this forum. While I believe everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, some of these comments are nonconstructive and evoke a sense of immaturity and snobbery that seems all too common in the Dupont Circle community.

Some of the more relevant arguments are the use of glass. I would be interested in knowing what the architect plans to do to make the building more green. Aesthetically, I think the building fits well into the community.

Many people before me believe that this building doesn't look like a church and is a waste of community space. I totally disagree. If you want to go visit a monumental stone church, they are a dime a dozen in this neighborhood, so take your pick. I like it for its originality and incorporation of nature into the interior. I feel closet to God when I am in nature and would love to worship in a place where I could experience the four seasons.

I could also see this easily being used for community events when church services are not going on. I will definitely be interested in seeing what transpires.

by isaac on Mar 11, 2010 3:52 pm • link • report

Why don't they reconstruct the old church the way it was, using the remaining wall and as much of the original materials as possible, instead of building another generic, soulless glass box? The church wasn't originally torn down because it was too small, or inadequate, or defective in some way, it was burned in a malicious act by arsonists. By leaving it empty for all those years, and now proposing a bland new design that will become instantly obsolete, basically concedes defeat to the arsonists. The congregation should have rebuilt it immediately instead of tearing the shell down. What a waste.

by Mr. T in DC on Mar 11, 2010 4:06 pm • link • report

The building will be a creative and innovative space for worship and neighborhood activities. It will add new life to this block of 18th street and provide a place where the gay and lesbian community of faith can meet along with others. It is really difficult to judge the overall proposed design based on the few pictures provided here.

by Louie on Mar 11, 2010 10:00 pm • link • report

to Mr. T.
No one could afford to build the church to original specs in 1970 nor could anyone do so today. Victorian Gothic is outlandishly expensive in our modern world. The church building behind the ruins that you see from the park has been actively used by the congregation and local non-profits seven days a week for forty years.

by Betty on Mar 11, 2010 10:25 pm • link • report

This is the worst I have seen in a long time. Why does Modern architecture need to be so ugly? When will architects learn that the general public hates modern architetcure? I agree with the comment about being suppried someone from the comgigation actually did like it.

by Leif from Wisconsin on Mar 11, 2010 11:00 pm • link • report

When will architects learn that the general public hates modern architetcure?

... You're maybe confusing real modern architecture with what passes for it in Wisconsin? ... or even in Herndon.

by Lance on Mar 11, 2010 11:24 pm • link • report

We too have real modern architecture in WI. It is just as ugly here as in D.C. I fail to see the beauty in its blandness. Especially when compared to the Gothic church pictured above.

by leif from Wisocnsin on Mar 11, 2010 11:41 pm • link • report

As a member of this parish and a regular reader of this blog, I was surprised to see the two intersect...add to that my background in preservation, and you understand the predicament I'm in.

Whatever my feelings about the look of the current design, I know of the need to build. It definitely would get regularly used by the parish and by the extended community around it. We wanted to add an underground parking garage, but it was too cost prohibitive. (As an aside, I will say that it's interesting when people choose to live smack dab in the middle of a densely populated city and then complain about all the people around them. "God-all these people walking down the street!")

More on topic...I really dislike the current design. It seems like the kind of structure we could have built in 1970s just after the arson attack, given the small settlement from insurance. I don't think it fits that well into the context of the street, though I'm not sure how necessary it is for a church to conform to what's around it. Churches, in my view, should stand apart from the world in a sort of way. That said, I do think the 18th Street side could be softened somewhat, and I hate that truncated cross. I'm glad the ruins are incorporated into the design above, though the pictures in the post do not show it. I personally think we could tear down ruined gable and still preserve the ruins below. We need to remember what happened but not fetishize it...

I'm going to support the Capital Campaign it will take to build a new sanctuary, but I sincerely hope this isn't the final draft. FYI, there are financial limitations to building something more than a glass box, so if you don't want to see that donate to the cause!

by preservationistdc on Mar 11, 2010 11:42 pm • link • report

Thayer, don't shift the argument. There's a reason they call it classicism too. Sometime in France the definition went from "the best" to "so good it's always right." Universality became standard for the ideological backbone of any high-minded architect in the 1600s. With a few periods of plurality, you can see a line of exclusive ideas behind the style trends, right up to the present day. Gothic Bombay, Bauhaus in Worcester, Beaux-arts everywhere but Germany.

And the architects did indeed create clashing buildings all over the world, or did not adapt them to the local climate. I'll concede you That some buildings got along better than others is no surprise, but for every horrible 60s tower, I can find you a pair of prewar apartments that clash.

Now, on to your new argument. I think it's a good thing for buildings to have strong entrances and fit the streetwall. You've critiqued buildings for failing to do so yourself. They still matter, even if you personally think it's ugly. I even like the entrance and the sanctuary is beautiful. I'd like to see more before crying bloody modernism.

And Thayer, you're in no position to attack my spelling, with "writting," "metaphore," "rythem," "build environment," and "taugological" in your comments here.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 12, 2010 1:02 am • link • report

I am SO over yet another glass and windex structure in this city. Have we not run out of this silicon madness? Are there not other more eco-friendly and inspiring materials and designs than this glass lunchbox? I commend the parish for wanting to rebuild its church...go for it...but please go back to the drawing board.

by John Klenert on Mar 12, 2010 7:28 am • link • report

Niel,
"Universality became standard for the ideological backbone of any high-minded architect in the 1600s" Were do you get dat stuf?

"With a few periods of plurality, you can see a line of exclusive ideas behind the style trends, right up to the present day." Ever read beyond Nikolaus Pevsner much???

Hav you ever desined a bilding?

Your right about something at least. My spelling does suck!

by Thayer-D on Mar 12, 2010 7:53 am • link • report

I was directed here by Mr. Alpert when we met at the ANC meeting on Wednesday. What a spirited discussion this is.

On clarification, the image of the roof from above Mr. Alpert is presenting is a snapshot taken from a video from a previous phase of design, and is not current or authorized. I see the producer of the video, "The Story Of St. Thomas," has made a similar comment.

On intent, the Parish is one of very modest means but of stalwart conviction. Their existing facility is badly in need of repair, however they have made the faithful decision to grow their ministry with a new facility designed to welcome the LGBT community into its body, before they renovate their existing building. That show of selfless hospitality should be commended.

On design, I appreciate your comments. The building is currently in the development/funding stage. Discussions are ongoing concerning materiality, construction systems, and the aesthetic appearance as we continue to work diligently in cooperation with the Building Committee and Historic Preservation Office staff.

On communication, as a representative of the Parish, we are beginning this week in earnest to extend a hand to the local community associations to welcome their input. I would urge you as representatives of the community to represent both yourselves and your community with both dignity and decorum, to engender credibility to your interests and your points of view.

Best Regards

by Architect on Mar 12, 2010 9:30 am • link • report

The gothic builders were constantly trying to achieve larger and larger window space and light. If they had had our modern glass, concrete and metal technology I suspect we would have had church buildings like this in the 14th century. There's much to be said for light as a symbol of God and for transparency between the Gospel and the world it seeks to reach and transform.

The pictures don't indicate the internal program. Is this going to be just another performance center or is it going to be a sacramental center where the faithful are gathered by word and sacrament? How will baptism be dignified? Will the water be living or still? Will the altar be placed so that people can be gathered around or a distant jewel in the box? Will the pulpit or ambo proclaim the importance of the word read and preached? Will there be plenty of open space for movement and processions? Will seating be flexible and adjustable for different rites and congregations?

Style always stirs our Episcopal hearts, but if the building, whatever its style, doesn't enable the worship and enhance the proclamation of the Gospel (as few of our buildings do) it is of little worth. If we look only to the past without embracing our present, our buildings are still-born.

by Paul Woodrum on Mar 12, 2010 9:37 am • link • report

Wow! Talk about a neighborhood issue prompting comments! I wonder if those good folks at St. Thomas' really know what they are in for vis-a-vis the neighborhood activist community? I have heard that funding is a huge issue and they have a long way to go to reach the $5 million-plus needed just for construction. I also understand they plan to sell their small existing parking lot to raise funds so there won't be any on-site parking. Not sure that makes a lot of sense.

by keen observer on Mar 12, 2010 9:38 am • link • report

I'm glad at least some people are realizing that these small thumbnail pictures do not really tell the full plan of what this congregation is trying to do.

I think it's silly to sit here and argue about style--nobody will ever agree on what's truly fashionable and what's not. I find it amazing how so many of you long for old victorian and gothic structures. I worship at Foundry, which is a very beautiful building, but not a very inviting one. I sit in the large open dome of the sanctuary thinking "jee wouldn't it be nice if there were some sun light in here?" or "You know, some fresh air would really open this place up." I think spirituality is as natural as any other facet of nature, so why do you want to build up thick stone walls to keep nature out?
Now yes, there may be some technical and enviornmental concerns to address (such as keeping it cool in the summer and warm in the winter) but we don't have enough details present here to begin judging this congregation's work.
The Crystal Cathedral in LA managed to overcome technical limitations with a much larger structure, I think this much smaller church can manage--I think all you "art critics" should really just leave them alone and let them do what they want. Why are you all so hell-bent on imposing your artistic tastes on the entire community ayway?!

by Matt on Mar 12, 2010 10:32 am • link • report

@ Paul,
"If they had had our modern glass, concrete and metal technology I suspect we would have had church buildings like this in the 14th century."

I would respectfully disagree. The beauty of a Cathedral was the pre-eminant goal of medieval builders, not how far could they push the technology. Technology served the purposes of beauty, but wasn't in and of itself considered the object of beauty (all though sometimes it inadvertantly did). The creation of beauty, whether minimalist, or very detailed has always been the way man honored God. Wasn't it He or Her that gave us our beautiful universe? Modernism subverted the dialogue between architect and lay people by eschewing beauty as a goal, or bourgeois persuit, to use their coded language.

Granted, we'll never agree on what exactly constitutes beauty, (thank god) but this design gives so little to the community in terms of beauty. Great that they want to open up to the community, I always thought that was the whole point of church, but then again I'm an ex-catholic. And as for spirituality having to do with connecting with nature which I agree with, why build any walls at all? Just leave it as a park.

Anywho, the congregation obviously has the right to pick any architect they choose, and design in any style they like, but if they are sincere in their efforts to embrace the community, they should deal with some aspect of the communities comments (here). Faye Jones' Thorncrown Chapel is an exquisit example of a building that isn't overtly historicist, is glass filled, and yet exudes spirituality. Please keep trying.

by Thayer-D on Mar 12, 2010 11:08 am • link • report

The University Church I go to was built in the early 60's and looks very much like this, and honestly, unless it had a sign outside saying so, no one would know it's even a church, (I mean half the students walking by still don't know until told!) and even those that go inside think it was a classroom building that was gutted and then had an altar stuck in it. Growing up in a church in the round, and then going to here, I gotta tell you I just want to go to a church that looks, "churchy" and one of the first things the students would do if we had the money is tear down the, "gaint concrete box" and make a actual "Church" looking church. Because boxy concrete churches of this style honestly just make me think of old hippies.

by Chris on Mar 12, 2010 4:30 pm • link • report

Sorry, Thayer, but modernism did not eschew beauty. It eschewed ornamentation. The two are not the same. Anyway, the primary issue shouldn't be 'beauty' but how well the new structure will proclaim the Gospel by enabling the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer in a holy space. They may strike some people as 'churchy' but faux reproductions and neighborly compatibility seldom achieve any of that

Paul Woodrum
Challwood Liturgical Arts Studio
New York

by Paul Woodrum on Mar 12, 2010 6:50 pm • link • report

It's quite all right Mr. Woodrum. The record is quite clear on the rejection of beauty from modernism's early manifestos, what ever your interpretation of those texts. Could you explain how it is that you can judge a neo-gothic church to be faux, while this neo-modernist box isn't also? It sounds like you might be an expert in proclaiming the Gospel, which I certainly am not, but I know hypocrisy when I hear it.
Judge not, lest you be judged?

by Thayer-D on Mar 12, 2010 9:20 pm • link • report

1. I have not read Pevsner. I have avoided him. I'm sorry that you're now opposed to intellectual considerations of architecture. But it really does matter, especially when you're claiming that the Modern movement totally rejected beauty. Besides, this is yesterday's fight. Modernism was never truly unified, and even the biggest revivalists aren't doing quite the same things they did.

2. Yes, I have "designed" a building. But you wouldn't like it. Have you?

3. Again, I'm not defending the modernist strawmen you think I am. I have critiqued the logic of a few particular comments. The use of church precedents is useful, but is not absolutely necessary. Critiquing the building for its style is something I thought we agreed to get past. Look around you and wonder why downtown looks specifically like romeparis or why there's an english village in Cleveland Park and then tell me that the International Style is placeless.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 12, 2010 10:04 pm • link • report

When it comes to building a church, I highly recommend four readings:

Bruggink & Droppers: Christ and Architecture. Written for the Reformed tradition by 95% applicable to Anglicanism.

Anson, Peter F: Fashions in Church Furnishings.

Dearmer, Percy: Parsons Handbook. Passages on urban church architecture.

Sayers, Dorothy: The Zeal of Thy House. Play about rebuilding after a fire. Reproduce? Build cheaply? Go with the latest fashion?

by Paul Woodrum on Mar 13, 2010 7:59 am • link • report

Niel,
It's just sounds like you never questioned some of the basic assertions taught at schools. With statements such as "Universality became standard for the ideological backbone of any high-minded architect in the 1600s", I didn't know if you where an architect, I meant no offense.

I think your right that I wouldn't like your designs if they're too reliant on words being read, and not enough on it's physical reality, but I'd love to look at it! Do you have any posted on your Tsarchitect site?

@ Paul,
"modernism did not eschew beauty...Anyway, the primary issue shouldn't be 'beauty'" I thought 'proclaiming the Gospel' was a thing of beauty? That's the way I ment it and I think church builders through out time did too. I hope you love the new building, I was just trying to give some intellectual backbone to much of the seamingly visceral commentary on this post. If you want to consider it or not is your choice. Best of luck!

by Thayer-D on Mar 14, 2010 7:34 am • link • report

I was never taught these things, Thayer. Not directly.

I don't think we're so differently minded, but the visceral commentary lends one to angry objections.

Stay put on the buildings I've designed. You'll see some before the year is out.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 14, 2010 10:52 am • link • report

It doesn't look like anything surrounding it. It will definitely stick out.

And hasn't that always been the case with churches?

by Joel Lawson on Mar 14, 2010 11:21 am • link • report

The architect seems quite gifted in many ways. His post above is well written and well-thought out, and the presentation he produced for the church which I happened upon is really very very good. I suspect this church will indeed become an icon for the neighborhood and the city.

And yes, there's always the threat that in a generation those who control its fortunes will want to tear it down. That's always a threat when you have a valuable piece of property put into the hands of lay persons whose priorities are the here and now. While great structures uplift the souls of the many that interact with them in one way or the other over the course of the day, that doesn't do much to help fund the programs of the church. You end up with a tug of war between the here and now and the forever. From what the architect wrote above though, it sounds like the leaders of this church understand that a balance of both aims is good.

by Lance on Mar 14, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report

In 1899 floor length trumpet shaped skirts, ample busts and and huge hats were in and the new St. Thomas Church reflected the style and provided a perfect background for its display.

Fashion forward to today and it's all about the mini-skirt suggesting minimalism should be the order of the day.

by Paul Woodrum on Mar 15, 2010 10:41 am • link • report

I wonder how much of the opposition to this attractive church design is due to the fact that the proposed design resembles a modern synagogue more than a traditional church. Just sayin'.

Also, I'm entertained and/or irritated by some peoples' concerns about parishioner comfort and the church's energy costs. Will we be mandating the "comfy pews" and "draft snake" for the front door as well?

by Josh on Mar 17, 2010 1:38 am • link • report

A wonderful addition to the neighborhood and Christian community. We should all wish them well! They stuck it out when the neighborhood got threatening, provided parishioners with a progressive and vibrant faith community, and created a wonderful church garden to share with city residents. Not to mention their outreach to the underclass in DC and global outreach. Awesome they have overcome so much and want a continued presence in Dupont Circle.

by jd on Mar 17, 2010 10:21 pm • link • report

I'm sorry but I do not find this to be an attractive building. It would not blend in at all with the neighborhood. DC is not NYC, often times people keep forgeting that.

I do not think this will be approved. And I do not think it should be approved. There are many great modern buildings in DC that blend in with the more traditional structures much better than this one. A good example is on Mass Ave there is a modern building by the old mansions. I forget the name of it.

It's too much glass. A building cannot be ALL glass. And the 18th St view looks... Like something from communist Germany or something.

by Jason C on Mar 17, 2010 11:32 pm • link • report

Too funky for Dupont Circle architecture. Just my opinion though and I am not paying for it so...

But I think that I would not be comfortable sitting in there, at all. Sun beaming down on you, glass wall to the left, during church seeing people jogging by, seeing dogs taking a leak and such. Too distracting. And people on the street would be gawking at the congregants like they were a zoo display.

I find the street view very cold, extremely cold.

Modern does not have to be so extreme in my opinion. But hey it's just my opinion. I am not a member of this church so it's somewhat not my business. Although I do live in Dupont but not this part of Dupont.

by Logan McCoy on Mar 18, 2010 10:02 pm • link • report

Six months later...

Designing isn't like buying a car, which is an immediate and tangible aesthetic judgment. It's a fluid process. The end result is (hopefully) a distilled and clarified version of the concept you started with. But much evolved.

Thanks for the input. Hopefully the evolution has been to your liking.

Follow the link to see the daily progress. http://www.nostosnest.blogspot.com/

Best. MJ

by Matthew Jarvis, Architect on Sep 14, 2010 3:13 pm • link • report