This Thursday, the Historic Preservation Review Board will consider three modern buildings for landmark status: the HUD building at 7th and D SW, the Tax Court building at 2nd and D NW, and the Washington Hilton at Connecticut and T NW.

An Express article on the Hilton from last September calls it “one of only two notable giant curved structures,” the other being the HUD building. Both are very similar, built around the same time and in a similar style. Both create empty dead zones around them at street level.

The HPO staff report recommends landmarking this building (no surprise). But its justifications are weaker than with many other buildings. HPO is recommending landmarking under three criteria: A (historic events, from the Reagan assassination attempt), D (architectural significance), and F (work of a master). For each, I think the case is fairly weak.

Criterion F, Creative Masters: “They have been identified as notable works of craftsmen, artists, sculptors, architects, landscape architects, urban planners, engineers, builders, or developers whose works have influenced the evolution of their fields of endeavor, or are significant to the development of the District of Columbia or the nation.”

The staff report says the Hilton “is among the best work of William B. Tabler, no household name, but nonetheless an extraordinarily prolific and acknowledged master of hotel design.” Just because this is “among the best work” of a hotel design expert doesn’t make this a notable work by someone who has significantly influenced the field. By the HPO’s logic, any building by anyone who had any impact on a building craft should be landmarked.

In contrast, the HUD building was designed by Marcel Breuer, and whatever you may think of his style, it’s hard to argue he wasn’t extremely influential.

Criterion D, Architecture and Urbanism: “They embody the distinguishing characteristics of architectural styles, building types, or methods of construction, or are expressions of landscape architecture, engineering, or urban planning, siting, or design significant to the appearance and development of the District of Columbia or the nation.”

This sounds like it encompasses everything (what building doesn’t embody some distinguishing style, type or method of construction)? But as Louise pointed out in the context of the Wisconsin Ave Giant, the National Register’s regulations make clear that this is intended to ensure a diversity of buildings, not to landmark everything. Perhaps there’s value in retaining one curved, Brutalist egg crate building, but we don’t need to landmark every one. The HUD building is enough.

Criterion A, Events: “They are the site of events that contributed significantly to the heritage, culture or development of the District of Columbia or the nation.”

The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan took place here. But did that event “contribute significantly to the heritage” of DC? Reagan wasn’t actually assassinated, making this at most a minor event in DC history; obviously Ford’s Theatre really is a landmark, but not this. Also, the layout was completely transformed after the attempt, to ensure it never happened again. There’s no opportunity for a visitor to learn about the assassination by visiting the hotel.

This building is not significant enough in any criterion to be a landmark. It contains architectural features that are stronger in a more significant building. It’s a somewhat important work of a somewhat important architect. And a minor historic event took place here in a part of the building that no longer exists as it did.

Ultimately, this building isn’t going anywhere. The current owners don’t want to tear it down, and since it’s grandfathered into zoning, there’s no incentive to do that. One silver lining of landmarking this would be the opportunity for HPO to review potential changes. I’m in favor of design review, here and elsewhere. But we don’t need the force of law saying this building is worth preserving forever as it is. It’s not.