History
Book review: Capital Losses
Not long after witnessing the demolition of the Hitt House at 1501 New Hampshire Avenue off Dupont Circle in 1970, local historian James Goode began working on Capital Losses: A Cultural History of Washington's Destroyed Buildings. The book remains a definitive work for both emerging and established city preservationists.
Photo by DreamCity4IFE on Flickr.
Goode began his research in December of 1973, looking over more than one million photographs in 225 public and private collections. The former curator of the Smithsonian Castle and current archivist and historian for the BF Saul Company published the first edition of Capital Losses with the Smithsonian Institution Press in 1979.
"In DC in the 50s, 60s, and 70s people looked at Victorian architecture as something that should be removed," says Goode, who observes there is a greater awareness and appreciation today of historic architecture which "adds charm and character to a neighborhood."
More than a strict architectural history, Capital Losses provides insight into the intimate history of each building and landmark, and how its presence contributed to the livability of the city.
The construction of new commercial buildings and residential properties throughout downtown and mid-city over the past decade has altered the cityscape, but has not fundamentally obscured the city's historic Victorian heritage.
Enacted in 1978, the District of Columbia's Historic Landmark and Historic District Preservation Act is regarded as one of the strongest preservation laws in the country. Goode notes that this legislation, along with the maturation of the non-profit DC Preservation League and the city's Historic Preservation Review Board, provides the DC with a well-entrenched preservation community.
"Capital Losses has certainly helped get a number of historic districts established in the city," says Goode. To date, the Office of Planning recognizes 46 distinct historic neighborhoods and districts.
Last updated in 2003, Capital Losses focuses on both residential and non-residential property that has since been lost to only archival records.
From the old Washington Jail (built in 1839 and razed in 1874) at 4th and G Street NW, and the Center Market (designed by Adolf Cluss in 1871 and razed in 1931) at 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, where the National Archives currently stands, to horse troughs that were at major intersections throughout the city until the mid 1950s, Capital Losses chronicles historic Washington with more than 250 entries.
Goode cites "government expansion, private real estate development, urban renewal, freeways, commercial growth, and the enlargement of institutions such as universities, hospitals, and churches" as factors that contributed to Washington losing a "large number of architecturally significant buildings, ranging from Federal structures of the 1790s to art moderne landmarks from the 1930s" since the end of World War II.
Goode, who is also the author of Washington Sculpture: A Cultural History of Outdoor Sculpture in the Nation's Capital and Best Addresses is working on a new book, expected out in 3 years, about DC's historic houses.
"Dedicated to those Washingtonians who continue to fight to save the architectural heritage of the nation's capital," Capital Losses, more than three decades after its initial publication, remains necessary reading for anyone who cares or wants to learn about preservation in 21st century Washington.
A version of this article was first published by Capital Community News.
 | John Muller is a local journalist and historian. His first book, Frederick Douglass in Washington, DC: The Lion of Anacostia, was published by The History Press last year. John is now at work on Mark Twain in Washington, DC.    |
Comments
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
That building has one of the old industrial lifts in the basement big enough to drop a car from the sidewalk, and some very interesting industrial fittings. I'd love to know what it once housed.
by CJ on Aug 16, 2011 12:38 pm • link • report
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/19698.html
It would be cool if Taylor incorporated some of what you are talking about into their design...
by B on Aug 16, 2011 12:59 pm • link • report
by Ron on Aug 16, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report
HOWEVER, in the early days historic districts could be created with limited requirements for survey and a vote of citizens wasn't required.
Most of the city's historic districts were created when the laws were different. Now that there are stronger requirements, especially about citizen vote (at least, every property owner gets a ballot, but non-votes should not impact the decision), the number of historic districts that have been created has slowed to less than a trickle.
by Richard Layman on Aug 16, 2011 1:10 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 16, 2011 1:52 pm • link • report
The problem, as always, is the fungibility of standards and the extra hoops required to get *anything* accomplished.
Perhaps HPO's need to move beyond the NPS guidelines and really codify localized knowledge with a stronger nod to what's realistically available on the market. Additionally, moving beyond the "all old windows are salvagable" mantra and the "anything you do requires Historic review" belief would help.
Streamlining the historic district permitting process to match the process in non-historic districts would go a long way to gain better compliance. Ideally this would create a situation where all homeowners would use the same standards regardless of their inclusion in an actual historic district (why should a house in Capital Hill be repaired any different than a house in Eckington).
Currently we have the worst of all worlds. HPO's prevent meaningful repair on beautiful old homes so that they languish and fall to ruin, while interminable pop ups appear with shoddy exterior grade materials.
by JC on Aug 16, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report
For the most part, it's not an issue for most buildings, which change minimally. In those cases, the issue with change/rehabilitation (e.g., windows) is not so much about regulations but money, and it is reasonable for the city to provide some tax credits to people of lesser means. There are some instances I'd agree with you about "fungibility" of materials, at least in better specifications so that people know what they can do, more simply. (E.g., new "slate" products are a lot cheaper than slate, etc.)
(Note that in cities that have weak real estate markets, this discussion would be completely different. In DC, you can monetize the extra expense of maintaining buildings to HP standards. In many other communities, e.g., Albany, New York, Cleveland, St. Louis, Detroit, etc., you cannot.)
Similarly, we do a piss poor job about linking people with the right resources (including craftspeople) so that they can do cost-effective repairs. E.g., with indoor storms and some judicious repair, it's easy to maintain historic windows. E.g., we are repairing some of ours. The cost for new cords, panes of glass, even reconstructing a couple sashes, is minimal. The storms are much more expensive comparatively speaking, but still far cheaper than getting new windows, especially to historic standards (although our house isn't in a designated neighborhood, it is 82 years old).
The projects that get the most public attention in historic districts are the toughest ones, maybe there could be some improvements to the process. But most projects sail through HPO without HPRB involvement, because there are no significant issues raised by the project.
Anyway, with regard to non-historic districts, holy s***, not having regulations is terrible in terms of how buildings get wrecked by people who don't know squat about the value of maintaining to the extent possible, architecturally significant materials and design. It's what convinces me that we need design standards for the entire city, whether or not specific areas are historically designated.
WRT quaintness of the idea of historic districts, there's legitimacy to your statement (e.g., see the discussion of what I call identifying, selecting, naming, and claiming historicity and authenticity, in S. Osman's book _Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn_) but on the other hand, as what my best friend in college used to say about religion, "whatever gets you by" (in how people cope with various hardships).
I can't think of a better strategy for neighborhood stabilization and improvement in center cities than historic preservation.
Therefore, I wouldn't ever give it up. Not willingly. Otherwise, there is almost nothing else in the toolbox.
by Richard Layman on Aug 16, 2011 3:15 pm • link • report
I am happy that I am in a historic district, as it forces owners/developers to think about what they are doing, rather than just proceeding with towering pop-ups, that look horrendous.
I agree that we need to do a much better job of connecting people to good resources. Has a historic district disclosure form been added to real estate sales transaction documents. This is a critical step required for awareness to become more universal.
by Scott on Aug 17, 2011 5:52 am • link • report
by Richard Layman on Aug 17, 2011 12:42 pm • link • report
6. Does the seller have actual knowledge that this property is a D.C. Landmark included in a designated historic district or is designated a historic property?
7. Has the property been cited for any violation of historic preservation law or regulation during your ownership?
8. Does the seller have actual knowledge if a facade easement or a conservation easement has been placed on the property?
More information here: http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/RuleHome.aspx?RuleNumber=17-2708
by AR on Aug 17, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
I was wondering if there is a form that buyer's are required to sign that acknowledges that they are purchasing in a historic district and therefore will be held accountable to restoring property as required.
by Scott on Aug 17, 2011 3:50 pm • link • report
Add a Comment