"All over the place architecturally" is a good thing, IMO, as long as you have a large floor:land ratio (density) and a reasonably mixed zoning.

It's about the mixing of the old and the new, not the enshrinement of whatever style the neighborhood association happens to like.

by Squalish on Jun 19, 2008 5:13 pm • link • report

Picture on the right, I'm agreed it's horrid. If you're going to plunk a modern building in a historic neighborhood, give it at least a brick facade and some decent design. The one on the left is better, even though the architecture is varied it creates a sense of messy vitality, that the suburbs lack with their uniform particleboard homes and stuccoed shopping malls.

by Josh on Jun 19, 2008 5:59 pm • link • report

I wonder what the author thinks the unique architecture of DC is. Is it the red brick townhouses? Beaux-arts federal palaces? K Street? There are plenty of characterless neighborhoods in DC, and I frankly find a lot of townhouses and neoclassical buildings to have a certain generic could-be-anywhere quality that also plagues a lot of modern architecture.

But indeed, the boxy modern building is bland. Honestly I'd take something that's ugly but unusual.

ALso, a more important guideline is a high frontage: Floor area ratio. More entrances and stores means more variation.

by The King of Spain on Jun 19, 2008 6:26 pm • link • report

I'm generally against historic preservation (the Falklands in Silver Spring is a great example of why) however you bring up a very good point. If the city looks like an uncoordinated mish-mash of buildings, it lowers the desirability of the area, which in turn lowers the value and can even have a negative effect on crime.

This isn't to say modern and classical/historical can't be side by side, it just means that they ought to compliment each other.

by Dave Murphy on Jun 19, 2008 10:06 pm • link • report

I'm confused...are you saying the photo on the right is something to be avoided? I'm not walking down the street, but it seems like a perfectly serviceable residential street. Short setback, lots of windows, not too bad. I could do without the mini-driveways on the far side (do they lead to garages on the first floor? Ugh).

Historic preservation should be seen as an end in itself for truly significant works. We should avoid the Disney-fication of cities just to make them look pretty. My biggest complaint about living on the hill was always that zoning prevented anything but a corner grocery from going in every so often. It would have been nice to have some mixed-use corners that were restaurants in residential areas or maybe the occasional shop. A great example of this working is Richmond's Fan district.

by dino on Jun 19, 2008 11:25 pm • link • report

Seems to me that this is more of a case for design guidelines or form-based codes rather than a case against historic preservation.

The picture on the left contrasts nicely the differences between the old and new development, but aside from age, what's historic about the old stuff? What I hate about historic preservation is the taxidermy approach where anything old is worth preserving. In this case, what's new is actually worse, but it's not hard to envision a case where new development would be a step up. Say the area was adjacent to downtown and was being upzoned, or something similar.

It's always an easy case to make when you're comparing the old against such a crappy example of contemporary architecture and urbanism.

by Alex B. on Jun 20, 2008 8:32 am • link • report

King of Spain: There's no need to pick one unique architecture of DC. Georgetown is mostly Federal rowhouses, while Dupont is mostly Victorian. It's worth having historic (perhaps historic is the wrong word, but preservation) rules that keep people from tearing down their Federal rowhouse in Georgetown and replacing it with a modern glass block. Same for a Victorian in Dupont. For that matter, it's good that the rules prevent the Georgetown homeowner from putting in a bright blue house with a cylindrical turret, even though that looks great in Dupont.

Architectural harmony in a neighborhood creates value for the entire neighborhood, and therefore there's a collective interest both economic and aesthetic in restricting each individual home's exterior appearance. When I was looking at houses, we saw many beautiful old brick or stone houses on the outside that were super-modern on the inside; that's fine if that's what the owners want, but they don't get to foist their preferred style on the entire street.

by David Alpert on Jun 20, 2008 8:57 am • link • report

Halstead & Armitage are more Old Town than Lincoln Park, unless you're a realtor. The main intersection in Lincoln Park is N. Clark & Fullerton. LP is a long-established "desired, expensive" lovely neighborhood of the kind insulated from economic decline and therefore from vacant lots/deteriorated buildings that allow for new construction. LP is more like Cleveland Park in that sense where Old Town is more like the U street area of Shaw or Logan Circle, having undergone "rediscovery" and economic infusement in the last 2 decades.

20 years ago Halstead & Armitage was the north edge of serious urban blight around Halstead, North & Clyborne and farther south. I can't imagine there would have been a community large/active/organized enough to protect any lovely townhouses, if there were any. At that time Halstead, from Pilsen on the southside to Armitage in the north was a commercial street with factories and warehouses along with houses, apartment buildings and other businesses. A lot of it was worse looking than your photos, just several decades older.

by Bianchi on Jun 20, 2008 9:13 am • link • report

I used to live in Chicago, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the buildings in either of those photos. To me, that's just what Chicago looks like.

While we're talking about Chicago's charm versus DC's, why not mention the things that Chicago has but DC does not: a downtown area that doesn't die on weekends, a multitude of pedestrian-friendly streets that are a joy to walk along, immigrant neighborhoods that are thriving and safe, a bus system that makes sense, the list goes on and on...

by khb on Jun 20, 2008 12:51 pm • link • report

Those "boxy", contemporary buildings didn't replace anything historic. So, it's hard to "preserve" something that doesn't exist. Many of the older houses, were demolished long ago.

Many of the new contemporary homes in that area are great pieces of architecture that add to the complex fabric of Chicago much more than the vinyl-sided A-frames or vacant lots they replaced.

Many of Chicago's neighborhoods are great places to explore because you can find a diversity of styles from different eras. It doesn't try to pretend that it is a museum of some past vernacular.

by Market Urbanism on Jun 20, 2008 2:00 pm • link • report

Architectural harmony in a neighborhood creates value for the entire neighborhood, and therefore there's a collective interest both economic and aesthetic in restricting each individual home's exterior appearance.

I agree that there is value created. However, if the increase in value is so great, wouldn't there be an incentive for market forces to preserve neighborhoods instead of mandates? Such as some form of voluntary neighborhood association, facade easements and other easements owned by some collective organization?

I ask this because sometimes mandated preservation goes too far, at the expense of affordability. Such as in parts of Lincoln Park, where demand is certainly great enough to build much higher density. Some buildings, which contribute little to the historic character, are being preserved to pander to anti-development NIMBYs.

by Market Urbanism on Jun 20, 2008 2:18 pm • link • report

Market Urbanism: There are preservation easements in places like DC. Many people have donated easements that provide additional review over their paint colors and externally visible renovations.

Also, neighborhoods with preservation tend to have higher property values, including in Lincoln Park, where the historic district fetches higher prices. People are voting with their wallets.

However, market forces aren't sufficient to create the historic preservation rules to cover an entire neigborhood because doing so runs afoul of two typical market failures.

First of all, there's a collective action or tragedy of the commons problem: preserving the neighborhood isn't valuable unless everyone does it, and markets aren't good at getting everyone to agree to do something. One holdout can mess it all up.

There are private covenants and homeowner's associations in new developments, and clearly market forces support those, but that's only really practical because one actor (the developer) controls all the rights at first. I don't see a way for this to become established after the fact.

Second, people tend not to pay enough to preserve their economic interest against vague potential future dangers. For example, it's established that people generally don't buy enough insurance. People also don't save enough. For a group of homeowners interested in maintaining architectural harmony in their area to get together and offer money to other homeowners to agree to a common easement would require them to adequately value the future loss of having someone build an ultramodern building. I don't think people are equipped to do this.

Markets are great tools to solve problems, but there are also some types of problems we know markets are incapable of solving. I think this is partly one of them. Democracy is probably a better tool here.

by David Alpert on Jun 20, 2008 3:01 pm • link • report

Also, neighborhoods with preservation tend to have higher property values, including in Lincoln Park, where the historic district fetches higher prices. People are voting with their wallets.

Is it the preservation or the location? The mostly brand new South Loop fetches property values that are getting close to Lincoln Park.

Buildings of Historic significance tend to be located that take of some advantage of natural or transportation-related desirablity. So, while I agree there is some correlation, I would argue that the correlation is not a strong as you perceive it.

First of all, there's a collective action or tragedy of the commons problem: preserving the neighborhood isn't valuable unless everyone does it, and markets aren't good at getting everyone to agree to do something. One holdout can mess it all up.

But, with the obvious benefits to preservation you have to ask why would one hold out? Perhaps as a free-rider. But, there is still some benefit to the individual to preserve his building, and the neighbors could help buy him out if it truly benefits them.

But, you have to look deeper. In places like Lincoln Park, there is a huge opportunity cost to preservation. Especially, when you consider the demand to live in that location is probably sufficient to develop 60 story high rise condo buildings that would meet the demands of many more people than the existing 3-flat. This is more directly attributable to zoning, but preserving "neighborhood character" is the argument behind the relatively low-density zoning of Lincoln Park.

by Market Urbanism on Jun 20, 2008 4:15 pm • link • report

In other words, in Lincoln Park preservation has not helped property values. The restrictions against higher densities has actually prevented the true value of the property to be achieved through development.

I agree that preservation can be encouraged through democracy because of the high transaction costs of implementing preservation through pure market forces. However, market signals must not be completely neglected through NIMBY-driven, arbitrary mandates. Perhaps municipalities could help fund the creation of neighborhood association through property tax breaks or other incentives.

by Market Urbanism on Jun 20, 2008 4:46 pm • link • report

I don't know Chicago well enough to comment about Lincoln Park, but I expect that the same things that happened here happened there although maybe not to the same extent (e.g., Chicago never had the same level of white flight as DC, Chicago maintained its rail-based transit, Chicago is a much much bigger place, the local political environment is also different, etc.).

In the long almost 50 year period when trends did not favor urban living and the City of Washington experienced great population outmigration particularly by people with choices, preservationists were the few people who stayed, "urban pioneers," stabilizing neighborhoods and communities where for the most part, bankers and real estate firms didn't want to spend their time, and yes, preserving quality and character of place, and stabilizing and increasing property values in significant ways.

I find it ironic that people oppose preservation now as "new" residents, or at least newer than the people who spent decades working to improve the city when it mostly otherwise ran into the ground, because they want to take/reap all the benefits of that hard work and effort which was supported yes by preservation laws, without recognizing how that value of place was created, and without believing they have any obligation in return.

Show me where market politics works, where people make optimal economic decisions despite market distortions (one market distortion would be how the real estate development and financing regime favors places other than the center city, another would be the cost of creating and maintaining a road infrastructure, another would be the cost of maintaining access to relatively cheap oil, etc.) and then maybe I could accede to some of the arguments of market urbanism.

For more than 100 years it's been accepted and understood that individual decisions wrt property can have deleterious impacts on the whole. It's why zoning was created to begin with. (Albeit there were also segregationist aspects.) The same with building regulations.

But another issue is that highest and best use has many definitions. Developers are one interest group. People who live in a place another. And there interests aren't always congruent.

Anyway, consider reading the chapters on use value and exchange value of place in _Urban Fortunes_. Or the discussion on the property and democracy contradictions in _Planning the Capitalist City_.

by Richard Layman on Jun 22, 2008 7:43 am • link • report

Regarding Halsted & Armitage and how historic preservation affects the design of new buildings: It's not clear there was something historic to preserve, or in good enough condition to preserve, where that white-and-black glass cube now sits. Putting aside the style, does it meet other street friendly criteria? Is there a pharmacy on the street level in which anyone can get prescriptions filled, for instance? Isn't making the streets pedestrian friendly and transit accesible the primary priority? Like khb I lived in Chicago, in fact at 17xx Halsted just down the street in a house long torn down. It was a crappy house and didn't deserve preservation. But the point is this neighborhood at least on Halsted south of Armitage, was a mishmash. This whit&black cube may be visually jarring when approached from the Linclon Park side but if you approach from the south on Halsted I don't think it will be seen as such an anomaly. But I haven't been there in a long time. Again, isn't the 1st priority for new constructions to meet walking-friendly criteria aside from style? Does this cube do that? It certainly looks more ped friendly than that park-n-shop thing Silver Spring preserved on the corner of rte. 29 & GA(?). Was that also preserved as "mid-century commercial moderne"? Now thats some kooky historic preservation.

by Bianchi on Jun 22, 2008 11:47 am • link • report

I've found that Chicago has much better architecture than NYC in its new developments and somewhat better than DC. My theory is that Chicago has a design review process for bigger projects that has raised the median quality of acceptable architecture.

by mfs on Jun 22, 2008 8:44 pm • link • report