Comments on Historic committee favors addition atop historic rowhouse - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Elli D.

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:52:15 EDT

I have to disagree with you David. I think that building additional floors on top of historic rowhouses is not the brightest idea but I don't think most of these pop-ups look ugly. I have seen many of them which makes the building to look way better.

Comment by IMGoph

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:46:46 EDT

just because i feel it needs to be added, remember, pop-ups can end up looking like this without good design oversight.

Comment by Lance

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:17:41 EDT

*the HPRB was fair ...

Comment by Lance

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:16:40 EDT

@Anon, if you come upon this blog in the future and hear of a homeowner in Georgetown who it seems may very well be allowed to do the very thing you were denied? Would you not cry foul too?,

The point here is that Julie was hoping they'd do just exactly what you're proposing ... but for her. The HPRB was fait .. or at least consistent.

I own in this same historic district. I'm under the same constraints. Now, would it be fair/consistent if I'd bought my house with those same constraints and THEN managed to get HBRB to make an exception for me? Had those constraints not been in effect, you can bet Julie would have paid at least 1/3 more for her home. I.e., The 'market' would have had the house price out at exactly it's worth were that extra floor built. As it stands, because people (and more importantly the HPRB) will have sympathy for her situation, she can most likely NOW get an easy variance for the lot coverage and build the same (or probably more) square footage of space on to that house than if she'd never tried to get that Mansard roof .... She's not in a bad position ...

Comment by Anon

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:30:26 EDT

Julie- While my comments here have obviously been bitter. They were not at all meant to be critical of you or your expansion. I thought it was tasteful and was all for it. My stance from the get-go was only that the HPRB should be in the business of enforcing the Historic District rules. Not the business of deciding when to bend or break them. That just isn't fair or "consistent" as others have said. If there is to be leniency in historic districts for this type of addition then the groundwork should be laid so all homeowners have a defined path to pursue a home expansion. Again, I was all for your expansion and hoping it would give me grounds to reapply for an addition to my own home. But tell me this. Now that you have been denied, if you come upon this blog in the future and hear of a homeowner in Georgetown who it seems may very well be allowed to do the very thing you were denied? Would you not cry foul too?

Comment by Thayer-D

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:06:32 EDT

My sympathies to you Julie. You've been a responsible neighbor by producing a very pleasing design and completely in keeping with the neighborhood. I used to live there for 10 years and always thought that block was a great candidate for expansion simply because there was the model right across the street. You even went so far as to produce a nice window pattern on the house and a cool shed roof on your out-building. Here's someone willing to put their money into beautifying the hood, but becasue of some outdated keep'n it real nonsence, you've been deprived. WTF?

Comment by Julie

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:52:34 EDT

Hello posters. Unhappy homeowner of house in question here. The HPRB denied my 3rd story addition by a 5-2 vote, so the world will not tilt on its axis, wreaking death, destruction and havoc on our fair city... and my neighbors will be spared the indignity of having to look upon yet another mansard roof on the block. I am sure their lives will be enriched by having an uninterrupted row of two-story houses to look upon instead. I will just add how much I have enjoyed the comments speculating upon my personal life though. The horrors! A single woman with the audacity to have a house to herself!! (Putting aside, for the moment, those elderly relatives she's taken in.) And an in-home gym? Frivolous and unjustifiable! Let's face it, folks, you have no idea who I am or what my circumstances are nor is it any of your business... Nor is it relevant to the situation.

Comment by Anon

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:23:54 EDT

So when is the official ruling on this? I thought it was supposed to be handed down yesterday?

Comment by Thayer-D

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:59:28 EDT

@ Lance and Tom,
I see your point. Where I think you confuse things is when you call a neo-victorian in a victorian neighborhood a pastiche or a disneyfied replica. Can I assume if one where to build a mid-century modern replica on K street, you would throw the disneyland pastiche lable also? I'm not so sure. When they built Colonial Revival townhomes in Georgetown between the 1890's and 1920's, where they described as pastiche, or where they scrutinized on their own terms with-in their context? What style one preferes is entirely subjective, but when one applies different standards to different styles, I'm not so sure your argument holds up. Like I said earlier, immitation like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but if that's your primary focus in criticizing new projects, (I think) you are missing the bigger picture.

What does immitation have to do with "the lifestyle/workstyle/living style they make possible"? By in large, lay people could care less about that issue. Following this blog you'll see that many peoples response to a mid-century revival isn't that it immitates a past era, it's just that it's another (by and large)deadening, banal glass box. It's time to move on from this obsession with originality and focus on quality in any style.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:36:13 EDT

Thayer-D: I used modern with a small "m" meaning new as opposed to imitation.

Comment by Lance

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:54:01 EDT

@Thayer-D, I didn't read what Tom had to say in the way (I think) you're reading it ... What I'm hearing is 'A new addition or building/house doesn't need to be EXACTLY the same as the existing buildings/houses in the neighborhood in order to be 'appropriate'. It doesn't need to be a Disneyfied 'replica'. (And probably shouldn't be a Disneyfied 'replica'). It just needs to share the same basic 'essense' of the existing buildings/houses ... be it the same scale (2 or 3 story vs. maybe 5 or 6 story), the same quality of materials, and (at least in my opinion), the same uses (residential vs. commericial for instance.)

You're looking at it in terms of 'old' vs. 'new' (I think). And 'old' vs. 'new' doesn't have much to do with 'historic preservation.' It's not the bricks and motar we're seeking to preserve, but instead the lifestyle/workstyle/living style they make possible.

Comment by Thayer-D

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:25:48 EDT

@ Tom,
"Architecture properly is an art and neither modern art nor architecture should be banned in favor of constant imitation." Immitation is in the eye of the beholder. Your insistance on "real" modernism over "fake Victorians" is puzzling since the Modernist style is well over 80 years old now. Fair enough that it's not your cup of tea, but with that attitude, it seems that everything would be fake. Talk about loosing your way.

Comment by Jamie

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:49:15 EDT

@crin, that's interesting, and confirms that since the 1950s, houses have gotten bigger. Hello, suburban sprawl.

Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the question at hand: what is the average number of people in 2 story versus 3 story structure in a city?

I couldn't easily answer this question by googling, but it seems pretty intuitive. Few people can comfortably raise a family in a 2 bedroom house, and a small one in a 3 bedroom house. But a 3 level house will have at least 4 bedrooms, and also is more likely to have a separate basement unit since there's more living are on the upper levels. As population density increases, single-family homes are frequently converted to condos with one unit per floor, meaning a 3-level house could have 4 versus 3 units.

Comment by crin

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:41:12 EDT

@ Jamie, actually no. The average American household in 1950 occupied 983 sq ft and had 3.37 people. Today, households are 2349 square feet and only 2.6 people. Nothing sustainable about that.

@ Ah, you presume they work in the city and not the suburbs. You presume this is a growing family rather than just a single person who wants a bigger house. Once you have to start making derivative presumptions like that to determine what is "sustainable" you're no longer talking about historic preservation. Which is the my larger critique of the original article. Historic preservation and sustainability are often complimentary but there's no reason why historic preservation needs to be "redefined" so it fits within the cathedral of sustainability.

Comment by ah

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:40:19 EDT

Is adding a third story to a single-family residence really a good practice of sustainability or Smart Growth?

What if the alternative to getting the space the family wants is moving to a larger house in the suburbs?

Comment by Lance

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:36:25 EDT

@Tom, I think you got it right. I'd make a bet that the HPRB comes up with a similar proposal for the applicant. And I don't see that as a bad thing. The applicant will get more space than they're asking for and the neighborhood will get a 15th Street facade that is more in keeping with the scale, quality, and 'urbaness' than the suburban style garage that is there now. (Though I still wish we wouldn't see the loss of offstreet parking.)

Comment by Jamie

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:32:22 EDT

@crin, I would say on average, 3 story houses have more residents than 2 story houses. They may be converted to condos at some point, and people who have families might be able to remain there whereas a 2 or 3-bedroom 2-story house would be inadequate. Looking at just this case and their intended occupancy doesn't mean much, but if you look at existing 2 vs. 3 story houses, it seems very likely that the 3-story ones average more occupants.

Comment by crin

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:29:04 EDT

Is adding a third story to a single-family residence really a good practice of sustainability or Smart Growth? It's still a single-family residence, so it doesn't add density in terms of population, it only increases the size of the house that one person occupies. That means the per capita carbon emmissions for this property increases, which is bad sustainability and counter to several DC government sustainability goals.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:29:15 EDT

Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. To my eye the scourge of DC historic districts is the prevalence in new construction of either imitation Victorian or bland buildings. Architecture properly is an art and neither modern art nor architecture should be banned in favor of constant imitation.

This house is a case in point. It was the home of Georgia Johnson and many Harlem Renaissance writers, including Langston Hughes, gave readings there. Georgia Johnson did not live in a grand mansion with mansard roof and fancy rear additions. She lived in a humble two story.

The 15th Street side is a blank slate and like other empty spaces I'd appreciate the opportunity for innovative and attractive modern architecture. This would also preserve the distinction of what was the original house. I know this goes against the insistence on either imitation Victorian or blandness in historic districts in DC but it's where we've lost our way.

Comment by Jamie

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:39:21 EDT

@Anon- I'm not saying that what happened to you is appropriate. If I'm not mistaken, though, you aren't even in the same neighborhood, which makes the two situations even less analogous.

I am arguing that, in principle, there should be no expectation that just because one homeowner can do something, every other one should be able to do the same thing.

On the other hand, two homeowners in nearly identical situations probably should be able to do the same thing. This is consistency, though, and I absolutely think the process should be consistent. But that is not the same as "fairness."

Comment by crin

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:33:40 EDT

All this arguing is being done before HPRB even makes a decision. Let's wait and see what they say. Local PRIVATE membership groups like the Dupont Circle Conservancy often make decisions based on how well they get along with the applicant. There's nothing new there; the popular kids get what they want. Let's see what the HPRB says. They're the ones who matter right now.

While we wait, if a historic district is defined as a neighborhood of 2 and 3 story rowhouses, and all the 2 story ones are allowed to pop-up to 3 stories, do you still have a neighborhood of 2 and 3 story rohwouses?

Comment by Anon

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:32:59 EDT

Jamie- Lets just say I don't feel your examples are analogous to what I'm talking about. And FYI I sit on an end unit with side yard. Very similar cases. Ill have to see if this goes through if it gives me any leverage. But my guess is no.

Comment by Will

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:13:31 EDT

RE Anon's concern, calling it a "fairness" issue maybe riles a bit unnecessarily. Call it "consistency" instead. And given that the HPRB guys chose to allow the construction of a big rear addition two doors down from 1461 on S Street that would be more in place at Rehoboth than in a historic neighborhood, I'd say that consistency at this point would require allowing 1461 to do pretty much anything they want. After all, that addition is almost as visible from the 15th street side as anything that could be constructed at 1461.(Where was the agonized blog post explaining the historic rationale on THAT one, by the way?)

So if Anon has previously been shot down by HPRB, maybe the best advice for future success would be to go for more of a vinyl siding look. That seems to fly pretty well.

Comment by Jamie

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:01:03 EDT

@Anon, the process is inherently not fair. The answer is, a pop-up at the end of the row is far less visually disturbing than one that's not.

You seem focused on "fairness" but every single property is unique and needs to be treated as such. Is it fair if you have a streetlight in front of your house? What if you are on an end unit and there's no alley access to your house for rear parking, should you be allowed to have a curb cut because everyone else on your block has an alley-accessible backyard? What if your nextdoor neighbor lets their property deteriorate, is that "fair" to you? What if someone builds a tall structure near your house that blocks your view? What if the city puts a low-income housing project in your neighborhood?

Life is not fair, you shouldn't expect it to be so. Every single situation is unique and one size definitely does not fit all when it comes to this sort of thing.

Comment by Anon

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:54:48 EDT

After looking at the streetview it's clear this is part of a long stretch of identical houses. Not sure why what's across the street should be a factor. It certainly hasn't been a factor for rulings to date. My question is what happens if this gets approved and a neighbor in the middle of that stretch wants to do the same? Same design, same architect, same everything. Will they be denied because they sit in the middle of the uniform row? On the other hand, what if the neighbor nextdoor to the pop-up wants to do the same? Will they be allowed? In that fashion will the neighbor in the middle just have to wait for a couple decades for everyone else to do it before he is allowed the same property rights? And lets be frank. There is a huge financial windfall to be gained from being allowed to do this. If you can afford to do it then it's a very wise investment indeed. How can some owners be allowed to profit while others can't? Why am I forced to look for a bigger house for my family when I like the one I have, while Julie adds an in-house gym. The only thing that makes it fair is if the rule is no or the rule is yes. And to be clear. I'm quite in support of Julie. But this ruling will set a precedent which will have ramifications. And the system needs to be a fair one.

Comment by Thayer-D

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:27:56 EDT

It's a great solution. If they would have done it 100 years ago, they should allow it today. Cities are living breathing things that should be allowed to grow, as long as one is sensitive to the past, as this design is. Why shudder at something trying to look "pretty", don't we have enough uglyness around?

Comment by Corina

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:49:41 EDT

This seems like an excellent solution, and I applaud the writer for acknowledging that it could be done well.

What caught my eye was the mention that she cares for elderly relatives. How wonderful! As my family members started passing away, I kept getting more and more upset that I was losing more and more of my family's history. I interviewed my parents, oral history-style, and ended up transcribing those interviews. A few years later I got ambitious and collected some old photos and had books published of my family history. That has now morphed into a much more polished business, Life History Books - www.LifeHistoryBooks.com - which I run with personal historians scattered around the U.S. and England. We put together memoirs at an affordable price, with as little as four hours of interview time resulting in a 40-60 page book.

I'm very proud of what we're doing, and just wanted to share.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:52:47 EDT

If the present plan isn't approved, there's no reason why a stepped-back 3rd story which preserves the 2 story look of the row couldn't be done. The rear of it could go all the way back making a uniform 3 story facing 15th which would be an improvement. Even more square footage could be gained by increasing the height of the garage.

Comment by Steve

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:47:10 EDT

If you do a Google Street View of the block, you see that the north side of the street on which 1461 sits are uniformly 2 story for about half the block. However, across the street, several very similar houses have been mansarded over the course of the 20th Century if not before. The facades on the south side are uniform, but some of the roofs are mansards.

For this reason, in my opinion, one mansard on the corner on the north side, if done right, will not disturb the historic fabric of the block. If others follow, it will just look more like the south side.

Comment by Lance

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:14:27 EDT

@Tom Coumaris, Wow ... you make some good points. You have me reconsidering my opinion about the addition. I know I met Julie's mother and uncle one day ... they were nice as can be. And they did mention that the reason for the 3rd floor was so that a gym could be put in the basement of the existing house ... and that no, there wasn't anyone other than Julie who was going to live in the bulk of the house. I'm a little bit troubled that this could be the first mansard-roofed house in that row. Now I'm understanding why HPO has opposed it. Maybe just adding the back (or even more 'back' than asked for) could be a good compromise out of adding a sole mansard roof to that row.

I unfortunately wasn't at the Conservancy's meeting this month as I was out of town. But I'm surprised they would have supported this house IF it truly is the only pop-up on the block. They would know better. There must be a misunderstanding somewhere. No one would ever agree to an additional level in a row where all the other houses are a lower level.

Comment by Will

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:24:55 EDT

Per Julie's comment:
S Street has a listserv? What is it?

Comment by Sivad

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:28:10 EDT

@Julie

I support your personal rights as a homeowner. It is your property that you paid for, you should be able to do with it as you please as long as it does not impinge on the rights of other surrounding property owners. You probably wanted more space for a growing family and in stead of fleeing to the suburbs you decided to a remain a DC resident. How about we thank you for supporting the local economy? Not to mention you are giving yourself a better quality of life. It is easy people to complain from a distance.

On another note, interestingly enough the house in this article (New Hampshire@Upshur) was redone completely so it looks nothing like it originally did...

Comment by Fritz

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:30:35 EDT

@Paul - Great to see that some "urbanists" think so highly of the concept of private property that they advocate the apparent seizure of private parcels of land like Tregaron and Rosedale simply because "there's already plenty of parks in NW" and they know how to make better use of that land.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:58:35 EDT

Andrew: This house is the first in a long row of 2 story houses. Houses across the street and halfway down the block are 3 story, mostly with mansard roofs. Inevitably this will mean the 2 story row will eventually become 3 story and maybe 4 story. That may be warranted if the goal were to get greater density and more units. But instead it because a single occupancy is dissatisfied with 2 or 3 thousand sq. feet and wants another thousand. That's not a compelling reason to change that long row of 2 story houses.

Stepped back additions that don't show from the street are already allowed. Now additions to the front are being allowed if they're mansards. That means on top of the mansard there can be yet another addition that is stepped back. Mansards may be attractive but that doesn't mean every house in every historic district should have one added. 2 story rows like the one this house is in, as well as the south side of the 1400 block of T, are unique and should be preserved. They won't be of course because there's more money in additional stories.

Personally I'd rather additions be modern and neutral so as to not alter the historic structures and to allow architecture as an art. Allowing anything that "looks historicy" may be "pretty" in a suburban faux Victorian way.

But it's just pastiche. Not preservation.

Comment by Andrew

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:06:06 EDT

@anon

If your Mt. Pleasant house was a part of a row of nearly identical structures with a consistent roof line, then I can see why that would be denied, as compared to the proposal in this blog entry. Every proposal has some nuance which distinguishes it from another, which is why this can be tricky.

Credit Mr. Boasberg for doing what he could to apply as much consistency to the process during his tenure on the Board.

The HPO/HPRB did undertake a study in recent years to codify the guidelines for basement access in Mount Pleasant. Perhaps, if there is interest, the residents of the community can ask the HPO to develop guidelines for compatible rooftop additions, if they don't already exist.

Comment by Julie

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:03:51 EDT

Hello DC neighbors, I am the homeowner in question, with the proposed 3rd story addition. I appreciate the (mostly) thoughtful discussion and want to assure one and all that I am doing my best to propose a project that will enhance the character of the community in every way. This process began in earnest in February, and has entailed numerous meetings between myself, my architect, HPRB and zoning staff, the Dupont Circle Conservancy, the ANC and last but certainly not least, my neighbors. (Throughout that process, I might add, not one palm was greased.) Instead we have sought input from all quarters and my architect has done (I think) a masterful job of pulling all of the elements together into what I hope will be a beautiful AND historic addition to the neighborhood. My immediate neighbors have been enthusiastic and comments on our block's list-serve are running 2-to-1 in favor (with many more directly expressing their support to me, but wishing to avoid getting mixed up in the somewhat controversial email exchange). The bottom line is that I love my house, I love my neighborhood, I want to live here a long, long time AND I want to be a good neighbor. I just fail to see how adding a third story to my house -- which faces two 3 story homes -- could somehow change the character of my block (which already has 18 3-story homes). But we will know tomorrow when the HPRB has their say. Thanks, Julie

Comment by Paul

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:01:52 EDT

We need to re-think whether "historic preservation" laws have become "hysterical preservation" that is used to thwart smart growth. Look, for example, at Cleveland Park in DC, where historic preservation effectively exempts that neighborhood from increased density and smart growth near a Metro stop. Why should a close-in neigbhorhood on the Metro be able to declare itself "historic" and shift growth elsewhere? Think of the lost opportunity for more vibrancy, housing (including affordable housing) and restaurants upscale and retail along a desirable part of Connecticut Avenue on the Red Line -- not to mention the tax revenue that DC would realize from more density there. Beyond Connecticut Avenue, neighborhoods like Cleveland Park and Woodley Park have been able mostly to use historic preservation to lock-up big parcels against needed growth and create "private preserves" like Tregaron and Rosedale, when there are already plenty of parks in Northwest. DC is a city, not a suburb, and urbanism is about growing denser and smarter. I'll bet that Klingle Rd. (excuse me, "Valley") is somehow considered historic, too, as the latest nature preserve in Nimbyville.

Comment by David Alpert

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:28:18 EDT

Anon: a couple important points.

First, I don't know this owner and I don't think greased palms or personal interactions had anything to do with it. Personally, I just decided based on what I thought was right.

Second, this is just the opinion of a totally advisory neighborhood group. The real decision is HPRB's and they will decide tomorrow. And their staff have recommended denying this.

Finally, the Board changes over time. Tersh Boasberg's HPRB was much less interested in accommodating projects. Maybe you could find approval too, today. I don't know the details. And your Mt.P historic board may be a lot less accommodating than Dupont's, but if they are, they're still only advisory too.

Comment by Jamie

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:11:49 EDT

Ha ha! That would actually fit in well with the traditional Mt. Pleasant color schemes from what I remember...

Seriously, from everything I've read, the CP historical board sounds pretty unfortunate too. Move to Columbia Heights, over here, there's no historical board. Hell, most people don't even get permits at all before knocking down 100 year old structures.

Comment by Anon

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:05:57 EDT

Jamie- You don't want to know what I spent drawing up plans for a tasteful addition the first time around. I'm saving my moola now for a bigger house in Cleveland Park. And mark my words. When I move from MTP I will rent my house to frat boys and paint it neon green! Ok I wouldn't do that to my neighbors. But I should.

Comment by Anon

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:00:33 EDT

Lance- Have you read my previous comments at all? It's safe to say vinyl was not a part of the plan. Which I thought I had made clear already. This was by all means a tasteful addition. I wouldn't even call it a pop-up it was so tasteful. My neighbors didn't even care. They in fact said. "If it keeps you from moving away I hope it gets approved". But it did not. And the reasons listed were not. "out of scale" "cheap materials" "poor design" or any such thing. It was dismissed because it would have been seen from the street. And again. What does this mean for sideyards? What if there is a run of 3 houses in woodley park that are all 3 stories. If one wants to pop up it would be out of scale. But what if they all get together and agree they want to go 4 stories? Does that not offend the senses of the board? All these instances are now simply up to the board for approval at their whim. Which brings me back to my original point that it hardly seems fair.

Comment by Jimble

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:59:16 EDT

Looks like the folks in the Conservancy are happy to see expensive-looking additions that increase their property values, historic fabric be damned. This addition may look "pretty" as someone else remarked, but I'm doubtful that the additional floor will look appropriate in its context.

Comment by Jamie

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:51:32 EDT

"Am I now allowed to draw up plans for a side addition so long as it matches the character of my house and neighborhood? Or will I blindly be shot down on that front too simply because it can be seen from the street?"

Why don't you work with the board to figure this out? Tell them your idea. See if it flies. Draw up some preliminary plans. It's not a guessing game, and it shouldn't take much time or money to get to a point where you can see if it's going to fly or not.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:47:41 EDT

@Anon, "But to say that nothing can be added if seen from the street. Unless the Historic Review board thinks its cute."

It's not a matter of the Historic Review board thinking it's cute ... or even elegant. It's a matter of them thinking it's something that is appropriate for the neighborhood. Yes, that may mean that you can't put up a cheaply built vinyl addition .... and I guess that is the bad news if that is what you wanted to do ... But the good news is that you can indeed 'go bigger' ... you just have to do it in a way that doesn't impinge on your neighbors ... as those vinyl sided popups tend to do. And like Jamie said, when people buy into a HD they know what they're buying into. Yes, they give up some unilateral decision making capability regarding the property they're buying, but in exchange they get more surety about what their neighbors are going to be doing (or not doing as the case may be.)

Comment by Anon

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:40:52 EDT

Jamie- I did agree to live here knowing what it meant to live in a Historic District. I mentioned that in a comment above. And I knew going into it that I stood a fat chance of getting it approved and I did accept it quite graciously. Realizing that at least it wasn't as though a neighbor of mine would be allowed though I was denied. Now it seems I was incorrect and that he could in fact get a pop-up approved. Provided he attends the next few Historic MTP fundraisers and kisses the right asses. And what about side yards? I have one. Am I now allowed to draw up plans for a side addition so long as it matches the character of my house and neighborhood? Or will I blindly be shot down on that front too simply because it can be seen from the street? What are the new expectations? Same as the old expectations barring a fatty donation made at the next Gala?

Comment by Jamie

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:22:45 EDT

"But to say that nothing can be added if seen from the street. Unless the Historic Review board thinks its cute."

The process is subjective by nature. Your complaint is principally that you can't do what you want, but someone else can. Being subjective, it's not necessarily fair.

But it's not hard to understand this from the perspective of a homeowner in such a district. Just assume that you cannot build such structures and you won't be disappointed. You knew the rules going in, and you knew, most likely, you wouldn't be able to do this, even as a few lucky people might.

Comment by Jamie

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:18:16 EDT

"While we feel that a third story addition visible from the street should only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances"

Wanted to comment on this from the Conservancy. This is a problem.

There are many situations where a third-story popup would be an eyesore. Almost any third-story addition in the middle of a row of similar or staggered-styled two-story houses would probably be a problem.

But for every block that was designed with such uniformity to begin with, and still has it today, there is another one that does not. Many blocks have other construction that has already destroyed such uniformity, or maybe it never existed to begin with. A third-story addition, if well designed, could very much be an asset and not a detriment in those also common situations.

The review process does itself no favors with a de-facto opposition to any addition that is visible from the street. It invites circumventing the process, and inhibits investment in neighborhoods. If the process was reasonable it would do a lot more good overall.

Comment by Anon

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:15:55 EDT

Lance- This really just paves the way for those that are in with the historic preservation folks to be allowed to add space and value to their homes. I who am not, and do not know whose palms to grease, am not allowed. In that sense I suddenly don't have the same rights as others in a historic district. If the new standard is to be that homes in historic districts be allowed pop-ups so long as they meet historic construction guidelines. So be it. I was doing that already. But to say that nothing can be added if seen from the street. Unless the Historic Review board thinks its cute. That doesn't sit well with me.

Comment by Reid

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:14:15 EDT

Normally the HPRB has a problem with additions that try to melt in with the historical surroundings, on the grounds that it diminishes the "historicalness" or whatever of the original sections. It creates a catch 22 that, in my opinion, results in bland buildings. Because they can't match the original look exactly, they end up with a bland addition with no detailing that simply looks cheap.

Comment by andrew

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:13:47 EDT

Yes! Those plans look lovely!

Really, we need to retire the use of the phrase "historic preservation," and instead focus on preserving the fabric and architectural consistency of existing neighborhoods. My house was built during WWII, and is therefore considered historic. However, its flat brick facade could hardly even be considered architecture. Adding a third story and various Victorian-style embellishments would actually help it blend in more with the surrounding buildings. Historic preservation laws shouldn't prevent that from happening.

As much as I like plugging the holes, I think that ANCs should have the power to make sure that new buildings and additions are consistent with the existing neighborhood. The building's owners and the Dupont Conservancy seem to have done their homework here!

Meanwhile, the "non-historic" areas of capitol hill continue to erode.... The new development on the 800 Block of H St looks promising, especially considering that the developer, the city, and the nearby residents do seem to be having productive talks that will hopefully result in the project being built in a way that fits in with the existing neighborhood.

(Obviously, it would also be bad if the developers were entirely deterred. Although I share the concerns on building height, the existing strip mall on that site is far worse than anything being proposed.)

Comment by Adam L

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:00:51 EDT

@Jamie

Comment by Jamie

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:56:14 EDT

The purpose of "historic preservation" should not be to preserve every last dentil on every last house in a neighborhood. That goal is impossible, impractical, and pointless.

Most blocks in DC were built, originally, with a variety of styles, sizes, and configurations of homes. These were probably governed by little other than the geography and the desires of the builders. Their charm is this diversity - not the uniformity.

The purpose should be to preserve the character of the neighborhoods - not the exact blueprints of the 100 year old building.

This looks like a lovely 3rd story addition that fits well with the character of traditional DC architecture. I can think of no reason to oppose it.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:42:19 EDT

@Dave Murphy If Anon really does have an elegant plan to improve his/her house ...

The operative word here should be 'in keeping with the neighborhood' vs. 'elegant'. The role of historic preservation isn't to act as judge and jury of what is 'nice looking' or 'not nice looking' ... but to ensure that the things that brought people to a neighborhood tend to remain unchanged. And that includes the general 'look, feel, and quality' of a historic neighborhood. If 'elegant' is a part of that neighborhoods defining elements, then by all means it's okay to ensure that the addition looks 'elegant' ... But subjective as that word is (i.e. my 'elegant' might be very different from your 'elegant') it's best just to use similar properties in similar circumstances in the neighborhood as a guide ... as this architect has so appropriately done.

Historic preservation really is an art and not science. Those who don't understand that fall into the trap of thinking it is all about preserving buildings or facades ... and lose fact of the guts of historic preservation which is really all about preserving the essence of a neighborhood (or building) for the people that are there now and those to come. It's not really about the bricks and motar .... but how those bricks and motars shape the lives of the men and women who in turn shape the shape (and layout) of the bricks and motar ...

Comment by Dave Murphy

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:32:49 EDT

I think the role of historic preservation ought to be to encourage improvements like this while blocking the not-so-great pop-ups. If Anon really does have an elegant plan to improve his/her house while retaining the character of the neighborhood, I think that it ought to be encouraged.

And Lance, if there is no off-street garage, the occupants will have less incentive to own a car in the first place. That's really taking a car off the road.

Comment by dano

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:30:13 EDT

Good to see there is some reason within the workings of the district after the Big Bear snafu.

It looks like a good design and a fair solution. In other words: miraculous.

Comment by Sam

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:23:51 EDT

David,
Eric is correct the house is actually 1461 S street, not 1641.

I lived in 1461 S Street for three years until I moved to my current residence in Mt. Pleasant about a year ago. 1461 is a wonderful and historic house (http://www.culturaltourismdc.org/node/1274). During my time at what we lovingly refered to as the "big blue house" I always admired the house across the street and I would love to see 1461 match its neighbor across the street.

I do not know the woman who lives there now but it seems to me from the plans posted on GGW that the proposed construction would be a wonderful addition not only to the house but to the neighborhood as a whole.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:23:37 EDT

It looks like a nicely done addition. I'd be for it provided that the neighbors in the immediate house were in agreement ... as the added floor will without doubt affect their light and air. Also, given the existing parking problems in the neighborhood, and the urbanists desire to see curbside used for 'performance parking' (i.e. 'shortterm), I don't know if I'd be in agreement with off-street parking being converted into office space. It seems to fly in the face of urbanists desires to get cars off the road.

Comment by Anon

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:22:15 EDT

Forgive me for crying "no fair!" but I live in MTP and actually wanted to put a pop-up on my house. I have a growing family but love my house and location but need more space. I presented plans for a perfectly attractive pop-up that would match my house seamlessly. Yes was denied for no other reason than it could be seen from the street. Who are they to approve some and deny others. This is just another ridiculous case of greased palms. If you chose to live in a historic district you know what you are getting into. good and bad. But to have the review board be allowed to approve a neighbors pop-up and deny mine?

Comment by kk

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:21:14 EDT

As long as the design matches the colour and architecture of the building, neighborhood and time at which the building was made I say go for it.

I would have extended the third floor across the whole structure though but its fine this way to.

Comment by Eric

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:10:35 EDT

Yeah, some missing words here and there:

"And passerby would assume that this house. "

"Under Tersh Boasberg . But the preservation movement has been declining in numbers and strength."

Also, I believe this is 1461 S Street NW, not 1641.

Comment by Fritz

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:05:30 EDT

The penultimate paragraph looks like it's first sentence got chopped off.

Interesting article on balancing conflicting pressures.