I'll go back to the Giant for a minute. The meeting was a fine presentation by the Giant consultants. It was met with the usual traffic and parking concerns by folks who live within a block or two of the proposal As teh entry notes, it is obvious few people bothered to read the studies or PUD application before the meeting based on the questions asked.

It was the typical knee-jerk anti-development diatribe by folks who don't want any new development. The interesting point was the response when a question asked "Is this an all-or-nothing" proposal. The answer: "this is the economicaly viable proposal on the table".

I interpreted that to mean, if the neighborhood chips away too much, they can have the sucky store which is currently stuck in 1950. Right where the nay-sayers want it.

The good news: There were plenty of people there who were strongly supportive of walkable amenity in their neighborhood.

by William on Jun 13, 2008 3:44 pm • link • report

Might a I suggest a third test relating to the craftsmanship of a building and it's components? Architects today will look at a "classical" building and say "They can't make them like that today" (Which isn't really true, but that has to do with the curriculum of most architecture schools.) If a building would be very difficult to reproduce in light of current technology or building techniques (or the aesthetic predilections of contemporary architects) there might be a stronger case for preserving it than say, a building that was mostly just cast concrete.

by Steve on Jun 13, 2008 4:09 pm • link • report

I also think there should be a serious discussion of what counts for historic. If the argument is that the architecture is historically significant, the building should be paradigmatic of the style and uniquely so at a national level. The fact that buildings of this "style" are a dime a dozen should automatically exclude any individual building from being considered historic on that basis alone. Bonus points would of course go to actually significant examples, firsts, great accomplishments by important architects/builders/etc.

And the idea that a building is historic because a "famous" person went there sometime should go. I can see saving the residences of historic figures and other cases where the building and person are truly linked. The motivation there should be that the physical space can actually say something about the person, it conveys meaning. Arguing we should save an apartment building in Silver Spring because Eleanor Roosevelt was at the opening just doesn't MEAN anything.

by Ryan on Jun 13, 2008 4:55 pm • link • report

I can't resist posting this excerpt from Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame (Book 3, chapter 2). He first spends many pages describing and praising the Paris of the Gothic era, and then (and this is just part of it):

The Paris of to-day [1831] has, therefore, no typical characteristic physiognomy. It is a collection of samples of several periods, of which the finest have disappeared. The capital is increasing in houses only, and what houses! At this rate, there will be a new Paris every fifty years. The historic significance, too, of its architecture is lessened day by day. The great edifices are becoming fewer and fewer, are being swallowed up before our eyes by the flood of houses. Our fathers had a Paris of stone; our sons will have a Paris of stucco.

As for the modern structures of this new Paris, we would much prefer not to dilate upon them. Not that we fail to give them their due. The Sainte-Geneviève of M. Soufflot is certainly the finest tea-cake that ever was made of stone. The palace of the Légion d’Honneur is also a most distinguished piece of confectionery. The dome of the Corn Market is a jockey-cap set on the top of a high ladder. The towers of Saint-Sulpice are two great clarinets—a shape which is as good as any other—and the grinning zigzag of the telegraph agreeably breaks the monotony of their roofs. Saint-Roch possesses a door that can only be matched in magnificence by that of Saint Thomas Aquinas; also it owns a Calvary in alto-relievo down in a cellar, and a monstrance of gilded wood—real marvels these, one must admit. The lantern tower in the maze at the Botanical Gardens is also vastly ingenious. As regards the Bourse, which is Greek as to its colonnade, Roman as to the round arches of its windows and doors, and Renaissance as to its broad, low, vaulted roof, it is indubitably in purest and most correct style; in proof of which we need only state that it is crowned by an attic story such as was never seen in Athens—a beautiful straight line, gracefully intersected at intervals by chimney pots. And, admitting that it be a rule in architecture that a building should be so adapted to its purpose that that purpose should at once be discernible in the aspect of the edifice, no praise is too high for a structure which might, from its appearance, be indifferently a royal palace, a chamber of deputies, a town hall, a college, a riding-school, an academy, a warehouse, a court of justice, a museum, a barracks, a mausoleum, a temple, or a theatre—and all the time it is an Exchange. Again, a building should be appropriate to the climate. This one is obviously constructed for our cold and rainy skies. It has an almost flat roof, as they obtain in the East, so that in winter, when it snows, that roof has to be swept, and, of course, we all know that roofs are intended to be swept. And as regards the purpose of which we spoke just now, the building fulfils it to admiration: it is a Bourse in France as it would have been a Temple in Greece. It is true that the architect has been at great pains to conceal the face of the clock, which would have spoilt the pure lines of the façade; but in return, we have the colonnade running round the entire building, under which, on high-days and holidays, the imposing procession of stock-brokers and exchange-agents can display itself in all its glory.

by bb on Jun 13, 2008 7:14 pm • link • report

To thwart the historic argument effectively, one should memorize the criteria for evaluating the eligibility for properties for the National Register of Historic Places.

Here it is (from http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/regulations.htm): “The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and

(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.”

Item c can seem like a catch-all, but the intention of the criteria are expressly not to gather all such properties, but in the regulation's own wording: "These criteria are worded in a manner to provide for a wide diversity of resources." The intention of the vague wording is thus NOT to capture a wide swath of otherwise undistinguished properties of a particular type or era.

Please note that “properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register” (unless it is of exceptional importance, or is an integral part of a district.)

My whole career has been architectural preservation but it truly pains me to see it trotted out in marginal cases as an indirect way to achieve anti-growth agendas. When someone says it's historic they mean, essentially, it's eligible for listing on the National Register. Use these criteria to question that premise.

by louise on Jun 14, 2008 10:55 am • link • report

Sadly, the DC Preservation Law does not recognize the 50 year benchmark. HPO can designate a property to the DC register which can subsequently be forwarded to the national register once the property "turns" 50.

by William on Jun 14, 2008 9:18 pm • link • report