Conflicting Styles in SW?
4 12 2009Don’t get us wrong, one of the things that makes a cityscape interesting and compelling is the the difference in architectural styles, but in some cases certain styles just don’t work next to each other. Nowhere is that more evident right now than in Southwest DC. While some projects have opted to redevelop and cover the remnants of past styles with glass (like the slick new Arena stage), there will inevitably be conflicting architecture.
The Waterfront Station project is a good example of some of the prevalent Extreme Brutalism style that was so popular in the 1980s squeezed right up next to the modern glass curtain projects of today. Now the architects of the new development made no attempts to connect with the surrounding buildings (which they knew would remain standing and refurbished).
We aren’t saying it is the responsibility of the architects, but it does just leave it looking very disconnected. What do you think? Any particular styles that just don’t look good together around town? And don’t just say post modern next to anything!
[Photo: MV Jantzen]
That center might have some concrete at the base which would rip your shirt, but beyond that, it looks a lok like the newer neighbor. I’m not sure how one rectangular grid of glass clashes with another, they’re both banal. BTW, if it’s not the architects responsability, then who’s is it?
Thayer-D obviously hasn’t seen the other side of the new building he calls “bland”. It’s exceptional, with a variety of textures and color. Go down to SW and take a look!
Also, the old brutalist tower is going to be stripped down to the core, and will have a new glass curtain wall. It will be a residential building. I don’t think it will clash at all, once it is refurbished.
The issue with projects like the ones in the photo is that all three buildings are owned by three different developers. Each developer has their own ideas and needs/wants. The center building has been studied for conversion to apartments (with new facade) however that project was put on hold.
I will tell you whose responsibility it is… the community. The whole reason we require developers to hold community meetings is to get feedback, but offten no one shows up, leaving the developer and architect to do what ever they please.
As for architectural styles that conflict I always thought that the seeing the French 2nd Empire style (like around the White House) next to anything else looks bad!
Hey Bob, I don’t think they are going to be doing any exterior work on that central building, where did you get this info? I think they are just doing interior refurbishments.
It isn’t just the architect or the community. The architect can propose a design that blends well with the surroundings, but the client can overrule that proposal and insist upon something different. The architect can continue to urge the client to reconsider, and often they do, but they never forget that the client is paying their fees, and if they do not do what the client wants, the client will hire another architect to finish the project.
And by the way, Brutalism is a 1970s style, not 1980s.
And part of the reason the buildings in the above photo look so ‘disconnected’ is because they are, physically, disconnected. It doesn’t matter what the styles are, when buildings are separated like that, they aren’t going to look as cohesive as buildings that are conjoined.
When the building in the center is finished, it will have a new curtain wall exterior that will go to street level and blend nicely with the restored IM Pei structure on the left of the photo, and the newbuild on the right. See www.swdcblog.com for a rendering.
This picture is a bit misleading, the other side of the new building has buff colored cladding that sort of complements the concrete of the older buildings. That having been said the “brutalist” building dates to the 1960’s I think and was supposed to be reclad in the all glass manner that is the style today. They share a common geometric language that I think allows them to coexist fine enough its just that one building is in massive disarray with broken windows, etc, while the other is brand new. At the least they should do a plan b- fix the windows and scale back on the recladding, surely it beats plywood and broken glass.
Yes, it looks “messy” today, 12/4/09 standing on M looking north at the “Waterfront Mall Mess, we must hold the community accountable. There is a new condo with that cheap looking yellow, orange brick - it is behind Potomac Place. No one was paying attention when that was built. And so it goes…..
Zoning, the architect(s), community, owner, user, etc all play into the look. Let’s be realistic, perfect continuity gets boring and repetitive. I’d rather not build more brutalist crap just to have it blend in with the old. It makes for some interesting contrasts anyway.
I’ve always hated the clash between the Old Executive building and the White House.
According to the last community meeting I attended for the project, the plan was to completely strip the facade on the building in the center of the picture. It was then supposed be converted into a residential building and receive an entirely new facade (that according to the PUD would be similar in style to building to the right).
That was several years ago though…
No one should have a say what these things look like. It’s a matter of taste, and taste cannot be legislated or dictated. Just like you can’t have a logical argument what the best color is. Red? Blue? You can’t say because it’s a matter of taste. It’s a matter of taste what color these buildings should be, whether they should be brick, stone, or glass, etc.
It’s a matter of safety and property values how tall they should be, how much of their lot they should occupy, etc. That can be legislated. But you can’t legislate style.
The entire SW neighborhood including Waterfront Mall and the two old EPA buildings that you’re referring to, was razed and redeveloped in the 1960’s not the 80’s as your article suggests. Brutalism was an architectural style that became popular in the 50s and lasted into the 70s because it was a cheap form of construction that met the needs of a rapidly growing country. As many other have pointed out those two buildings are intended to have new facades, however due to the current economic downturn the developer is having difficulty getting financing for multi-family develoment.