Although the curb-cut is not great, I'd prefer this building to the ugly monstrosity in Glover Park, which appears to be a similar size building:

http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/9/E/6/xy_9E61407E-7F8E-4599-90DE-9A4992580844__.jpg

by Ben on Jun 14, 2010 3:31 pm • link • report

Wow. That Glover park building is....awful. And I thought the (in)explicably still-vacant Capitol Hill Oasis was bad.

by andrew on Jun 14, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report

I can look out my office window and see that Glover Park building. It's been under construction for at least 5 years.

I like the look of the building in this rendering. Seems like they need to get their paperwork in order though.

by Lou on Jun 14, 2010 3:47 pm • link • report

What a shame. It's a preaty banal design, but the worst seems to be the curb cut. The San Francisco death by a thousand (curb) cuts does not a good streetscape make.

by Thayer-D on Jun 14, 2010 3:50 pm • link • report

He proceeded without a permit. Confiscate the property under eminent domain and forbid the developer from doing business in the city.

by Redline SOS on Jun 14, 2010 3:55 pm • link • report

I almost bought a condo next door to there, in the yellow building. It had the parking behind the building, with the entrance off the alley. Couldn't this new building share the same entrance, and avoid the curb cut?

by jcm on Jun 14, 2010 3:59 pm • link • report

Where's the front door?

by BeyondDC on Jun 14, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report

I don't think DC does a good enough job policing shoddy construction. And certainly not a good enough job fining the culprits. On my block the owner of a long vacant rowhouse finally scrapped together the funds to build 2 units into the shell he gutted 5 years prior. In order to do this he wanted to remove a huge old tree to make room for an addition. The city of course told him he would have to pay a fee to remove it because dc has a protected tree canopy. He didn't want to pay this fee so he just started excavating all around it to extend the basement unit. Of course knowing the tree would die after having its root system decimated. We of course called the cops on him and he had to pay a fine. Which I'm not even sure is equal to the cost of the fee he would have had to pay up front. Since then he has had 5 or 6 stop work orders for cutting corners. Seems to me there is a similar asshat in charge of this parkveiw building so I wouldn't expect anything but a looooooong and drawn out construction eye-sore for the coming years. Sorry to say.

by John on Jun 14, 2010 4:06 pm • link • report

If DC confiscated the property of every person who built without a permit . . . . the city would have enough money to adequately staff a permit office that requires a permit merely to think about maybe doing some construction.

by ah on Jun 14, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report

i looked on google street view. was this cute victorian house razed to build this condo? if so i freaking annoyed. can we stop developers from destroying the character of our neighbors? this condo building deserves an ass hat award.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=3577+Warder+Street&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=3577+Warder+St+NW,+Washington,+District+of+Columbia,+20010&gl=us&ei=2IwWTJ-JBcO78gaR4PSwCg&ved=0CBMQ8gEwAA&ll=38.934565,-77.020958&spn=0.00078,0.001206&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=38.934662,-77.020985&panoid=bQnRaoqXMSNxdlr4oT-Rww&cbp=12,97.91,,1,-4.79

by guest on Jun 14, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report

whoa. Just looked at the street view. Gotta say the proposed condo looks a hell of a lot better than the condo buildings on either side of it. Yikes.

by John on Jun 14, 2010 4:30 pm • link • report

Yeah, looks like any neighborhood character was long ago eliminated.

by ah on Jun 14, 2010 4:31 pm • link • report

Yup that victorian, i guess, used to be there. I just bought around the corner from this place. I have to tell ya, I don't mind that they tore the house down and are putting this up. There are already 2 condo building on that block and Warder is a pretty busy street. I bet that old house was not in good shape at all and I am all for adding density, where appropriate.

I like the building, at least it has side windows unlike that glover park POS and it generally fits with the block.

by chris on Jun 14, 2010 4:36 pm • link • report

@initial post-

The rendering of the building on the left is similar to the existing; but I'm amused that the building on the right bears no resemblence to the actual building.

As for neighborhood character... the demolished building was cute, albeit admittedly tiny. I can't say any of the other buildings in the area are particularly attractive: I wouldn't be terribly offended if it got a new look; but then again I don't live there and aren't quite in a position to comment much more than that.

I will say that solely looking at the proposed building itself, I do think it's interesting. I'm not a raving fan, but I can't say I find it hideous either.

@jcm-

From looking at it on Bing's birds eye view, it looks like your building's parking would block access to the new building's parking; unless both properties were to come to agreement on sharing a parking lot; or letting the further portion of your building's parking lot to become a cut-through to the new property. The impetus would be on you & your neighbors to decide if those would be agreeable options.

by Bossi on Jun 14, 2010 4:55 pm • link • report

I live in Park View, and I'm a bit perplexed by why they think they need off-street parking anyway. There's not really stiff competition for streetparking, though there would be if everyone installed curbcuts. Agree with jcm - put the parking in the back like the rest of the neighborhood.

by Patrick on Jun 14, 2010 5:09 pm • link • report

@Redline SOS - you do know that when the city takes (not confiscates) property under eminent dimain, it has to pay for it, right? It's not just added to the list of city-owned properties.

by dcd on Jun 14, 2010 5:36 pm • link • report

Is this design compatible with residential Park View?

Sure. There are zoning and permit issues, but the design seems fine.

by David desJardins on Jun 14, 2010 5:51 pm • link • report

@Bossi Good point. To be clear, I almost bought there, but didn't. Someone else will have to take the lead on that one!

by jcm on Jun 14, 2010 5:54 pm • link • report

That's one fugly building. The Glover Park building is another fugly thing.

by fritz on Jun 14, 2010 7:29 pm • link • report

Not sure it fits with a neighborhood full of Wardman-style row houses, but I kind of like a variety of styles of architecture in the neighborhood. @Patrick - agreed. No idea why they need extra parking in Park View, except that the developer can sell the spaces on top of the prices of each condo. Someone should tell prospective buyers that they shouldn't bother coughing up the extra money.

If the project ever gets built, that is.

by Park Viewer on Jun 14, 2010 8:45 pm • link • report

But what if it casts a SHADOW on the historic school across the street? Clearly it needs to be canceled.

by Teyo on Jun 14, 2010 10:57 pm • link • report

They were pouring concrete at that location just a few weeks ago. It's already above ground, though I did notice that work stopped again. Whatever is put on that block will an improvement.

by Wayan on Jun 14, 2010 11:19 pm • link • report

The corrugated metal and that shade of red will look even more ridiculous as time passes and they require maintenance.

by Rich on Jun 14, 2010 11:28 pm • link • report

Did anyone read the ad? 5 units! It seems a bit much given that the house being replaced was very narrow. Are these units in line size-wise with the other existing condos around there?

by Lance on Jun 14, 2010 11:40 pm • link • report

3577 Warder Street has alleyway access at their rear fenceline. There are no less than three alleyway entrances on that block. I can't imagine why they could possibly need a fourth curb cut on the block when there are already three that lead to the rear of the property in question. The alleyay entrances on Otis Pl. and Newton Pl. are both quite wide, and the entrance on Warder St. is only 3 properties over.

The house is fine I think. But there's no point doing a curb cut when you already have 3 potential entrances the property from the rear.

by Lee on Jun 15, 2010 6:50 am • link • report

@Lee-

I'm not taking a stand on the issue itself, but I think my previous comment got lost in the mix of comments: that alley can't access this particular property without first going through other private properties. The other properties have no obligation to private such access through their properties, though it's not to say it couldn't be done... but it'd any affected property owners to give the OK.

by Bossi on Jun 15, 2010 7:30 am • link • report

Don't know why someone would want off street parking? is parkview the exception to the rule that cars get constantly broken into and/or stolen in DC?

by RD on Jun 15, 2010 7:43 am • link • report

@RD--It also doesn't snow there.

by ah on Jun 15, 2010 9:15 am • link • report

All issues of legality and modernism aside, it's horrible urban design. There's no door facing the street. It looks like the only entrance is to the rear, off the parking lot.

by BeyondDC on Jun 15, 2010 10:56 am • link • report

Is that shadowy area in the front corner not an entrance? I assumed it was, but it's not clear.

by David Alpert on Jun 15, 2010 11:02 am • link • report

I am a fan of both modern housing, and DC's historic houses. I think both can work together. The one thing that must NOT be compromised is the streetscape. If they wanted a driveway, an urban block is not the place to build.

I will say that corrugated metal may have been a poor choice for such a venerable location as a street in DC.

by Jeremy Fretts on Jun 15, 2010 11:09 am • link • report

The more I look at this building, the less I think it merits the title of 'modern'. There are a lot of defining elements for a variety of 'moderns', but I'm really not seeing any here. What I'm seeing is a mishmash of materials and styles that are probably the result of trying to do things 'on the cheap' ... including the architectural drawings. If anything, it reminds me of the cheaper wooden construction buildings you might find on a hill in San Francisco that over the years got 'modernized'. Not that I would call those 'modern' architecture either ...

by Lance on Jun 15, 2010 7:55 pm • link • report

It's modern because it's not traditional architecture. It's not competing for an architecture award. Yes, it's an inexpensive construction project, mediocre at best compared to what is theoretically possible. But what do you expect of five condos starting in the $300s?

by David desJardins on Jun 15, 2010 8:16 pm • link • report

It's modern because it was built recently, whether it is a traditional or modernist style. In this they strove for the timless method of: blow up the envelope, slather it in trendy materials with an arbitrary graphic design, and hope you pass for cool so as not to be seen for being greedy, cheap, and gimicky.

by Thayer-D on Jun 16, 2010 7:48 am • link • report

I just noticed where Kent also referred to it as 'contemporary' in his last sentence. I like that term better. It doesn't attempt to say that the project has any style ... just that it's being built now ... and a s 'contemporary' to much fine architecture currently up in a variety of styles ... ;)

by Lance on Jun 16, 2010 2:51 pm • link • report

I know nothing about architecture, but I thought modern happened decades ago- with the Space Age, Tang, etc...

I wonder how useful the term is...

what will they call modern architecture when it is not modern anymore? 'post-modern'?

What will they call post-modern architecture when it is old?
post-post-modern?

by ed on Jun 16, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report

@ed, from what I've noticed, the style that was called 'modern' in the past is nowdays often called 'mid-century modern' to place it at its origins in the 'mid' part of the last century. 'Contemporary' is probably a better way of describing some new style from the present now that the word 'modern' has become specific to a specific, past time frame.

by Lance on Jun 16, 2010 9:58 pm • link • report

ed,
You nailed it. If architects build for people who aren't architects, it would behove them to communicate clearly, unless they are being political. In our society, modern is good and old is bad, so you tell me what bias is being promoted by this word game. Contemporary isn't a style either, rather a moment in time. Ideology is for those afraid to think for themselves, in any aspect of life. I miss that tang though, how'bout some mid-century snacks?

by Thayer-D on Jun 17, 2010 7:44 am • link • report