Bad architecture of the day, and a quiz

Architecture

Bad architecture of the day, and a quiz

by David Alpert • June 18, 2008 11:23 am

Here's a particularly egregious example of street-deadening architecture, via DC Metrocentric. This drawing shows a proposed building at 11th and U, one block from Metro. The silver lining: this project is "on hold" at the moment and not actively moving forward. With luck, the developers or regulators will come to their senses in time.

Drawing from the architects.

Not only does this building have no cafes or shops in an area that's very full of pedestrian traffic. Not only does it contain only a single entrance, leaving the rest of the block blank. Not only does it put the garage entrance in the front of the building. Not only does it put the building behind a landscaped buffer zone (like the apartment buildings on Mass Ave), making it impossible to add ground-floor retail in the future.

All these transgressions against good design pale next to one: it also raises the landscaped buffer up a few feet, creating a wall along the sidewalk that further isolates pedestrians. And then, along the building's edge, the buffer drops back down in front of the windows.

This would be awful for the neighborhood. But there's actually a reason the architects did this. Can you guess what? Answer tomorrow.

22 comments

Tags: architecture, bad streets, DC, quizzes, U Street

DC keeps getting blank walls (Jan 8, 2008)
Awful green barricade: the answer (Jun 19, 2008)
Architecture criticism: the good and the bad (Jan 22, 2008)
The un-urban Marriott Wardman Park (Mar 21, 2008)
Zoning Update may restrict long storefronts and blank walls (Apr 2, 2008)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Security?

by John on Jun 18, 2008 11:49 am • link • report

Did neighbors living in SFHU and rowhouses ask for the setback/buffer?

by FourthandEye on Jun 18, 2008 11:54 am • link • report

Whatever the reason, it shouldn't be legal anywhere within a few blocks of a metro stop. Time to update DC's zoning laws.

by NGP Admin on Jun 18, 2008 11:58 am • link • report

Such horrendous urbanism is the path of least resistance in the zoning code?

by Alex B. on Jun 18, 2008 12:02 pm • link • report

is the raised-then-lowered yard a way to get around some law re: natural light in basement apartments or emergency exits on the "ground" floor? my general guess: to evade some regulation or another.

by Bianchi on Jun 18, 2008 12:11 pm • link • report

I would think the setback and lack of retail reduces the noise for those people living on the second floor. A coworker of mine moved out of the Ellington on U St. because the noise from the restaurant patios was too loud, even with the windows closed.

What could be done to abate this? I have no idea, maybe a couple floors of offices above retail and then housing.

by Adams Morgan on Jun 18, 2008 12:20 pm • link • report

Impossible? Really? The setbacks aren't good to be sure, but they might be able to make some of that into cafe space....

It's a shame, too, it looked like it could have been a fun building if not for those issues. I hasten to see why the architects did something so silly, unless it's going to be some kind of gated community.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jun 18, 2008 12:22 pm • link • report

Does it have anything to do with the Metro?

by The T on Jun 18, 2008 12:31 pm • link • report

My first guess was some kind of code compliance, but since others have already guessed that, does it have anything to do with water drainage?

by DC_Chica on Jun 18, 2008 1:31 pm • link • report

It's a hotel. Some privacy for the guests

by Tim on Jun 18, 2008 1:33 pm • link • report

Everybody loves underground parking!

by BeyondDC on Jun 18, 2008 2:02 pm • link • report

My guess is because the first level is sunken below ground level like many apartment buildings in DC. They do this to squeeze in an extra floor without having it be a basement. You step down to the lobby from the street and there are window wells for that lower level. If you look at the rendering, you can see there are steps down to the front entrance and a wheelchair ramp. The area between the sidewalk and that ground level is raised to provide some privacy to those first floor units I'm guessing.

by inlogan on Jun 18, 2008 2:22 pm • link • report

It looks like that trench around the building provides a lot of comfy nooks for bums to sleep.

by Steve on Jun 18, 2008 2:27 pm • link • report

Real guess: zoning footprint restriction.

Fake Guess: global warming. They plan the wall for the 2100 sea level line.

by vc on Jun 18, 2008 5:32 pm • link • report

The whole building retracts underground at the touch of a button.

by Laurence Aurbach on Jun 18, 2008 9:56 pm • link • report

Yikes... It seems to me like that would lead to some water drainage issues. I agree with the sunken first floor theory.

by David Murphy on Jun 18, 2008 10:47 pm • link • report

What corner of 11th and U would this go on? I live there and can't imagine this.

by Brian on Jun 20, 2008 11:04 am • link • report

This project, according to my files, is actually not on U Street, rather it's on the north east corner of 11th and V Sts. This project has been around for a number of years. The context of 11th and V is very different than that of placement on U Street. Actually the below grade entry and light wells reflect the new project across the street at Robertson's Beauregard project. Have a call in to architect to confirm address, but if it's at 11th & V, then this is a purely residential building, and the massing and design elements are consistent with nearby buildings.

by Phil Spalding on Jun 20, 2008 12:56 pm • link • report

Just wanted to clear up s some confusion on this project's location - its actually at 2101 11th St NW - 11th and V Streets, NW - not on U.

by Cardozo Shaw Neighborhood Association (CSNA) on Jun 20, 2008 1:54 pm • link • report

Thanks Phil and CSNA. That makes more sense, and is not quite so awful. However, I still think that this is poor architecture from a street level standpoint. It still has a garage entrance in the front of the building, and an entirely blank wall on the side.

Instead, they could have put the garage entrance off the alley which appears to exist. To match the townhouses next door, they could have made some townhouse units with front stairs and/or porches along the V Street side.

The green barrier makes it almost impossible to put in a corner cafe or dry cleaner or something in the future if the neighborhood's needs call for it; corner properties should retain that option wherever possible. And in general, it feels like this property is trying to wall itself off from the neighborhood. I don't think that's what you want.

by David Alpert on Jun 20, 2008 3:08 pm • link • report

Some good points in this post--at first glance this is obviously not a great project. But I as I was reminded once by a planning director friend in North Carolina, denying access to small green spaces--via fences, low walls, etc--doesn't mean those areas can't function like a public amenity in some ways. They can create visual interest and relief for the streetscape. But, if the wall were too high for pedestrians to readily glance over, it is in fact as bad as you say. Unfortunately, not every building can support first floor retail--and ground floor level retail shouldn't be considered a necessity for an active streetscape.

by J Miller on Jun 30, 2008 3:19 pm • link • report

11th st. is an embarrassment. This hideous building is meant to mirror the hideous eyesore already on that corner (the Beauregard). What are these architects smoking? Yech.

by sg on Aug 12, 2008 2:27 pm • link • report