Modern vs Classic: 901 K Street
9 02 2010As is often the case, the building at 901 K Street had to fit into a street scape that already included some varying styles of architecture. We have all seen first hand the type of trouble developers can run into when they try to smash different distinct forms of architecture together, some are more successful than others.
The recently built 901 K Street is sandwiched between the neo-classical Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church (pictured to the left) and the historic Carnegie Library building. In an interesting design choice the architects at Smith Group went with luminescent glass curtainwall to buttress right up against the neo-classic church but also included a European-style terra cotta façade as a reference back. Thoughts?
[Photo: Jim Malone]
Looks good. The juxtaposition can highlight the best aspects of both. Neo classical + Neo modernist = Neologism
Aren’t all new office buildings glass curtainwall these days? And thus, isn’t it pretty obvious that these buildings will soon look very dated, just like the mansard roofs of the Second Empire style or the bare concrete of Brutalism? As a result, I think this building’s link to the Neoclassical church will soon look very unimaginative. The architects will be seen as playing it safe rather than trying for a special connection.
I think this building (901 K) is a total success.
It integrates into the site well, relates to the chapel, plays with the glass, and uses a great material - the terracotta rainscreen - on one side to make it look less monolithic. At the bottom, the building has a terracotta cladding as well, which makes for a more interesting surface than just extending the glass downwards.
Even the lobby is good. It is on the K street side, but is perpendicular to Mass Ave, which creates a good relationship.
I have liked this building from the few times I have walked by, and in cases like this, it would be very difficult to match up ANY other architectural style to neo-classical, I think in this case, a stark contrast is what was called for.
I agree with Thayer-D, in this case the contrast is fantastic. Lets face it you just are not going to match the quality of the historic buildings, so why not highlight the differences and create an exciting contrast.
Preventing something from “becoming dated” is very difficult. There is always going to be a current that carries the spirit of the current architectural moment. What matters are things like quality, scale, visual interest. Some of the new construction succeeds at this some does not. Even within historic styles there are clues that allow you to “date” a particular structure, and fashions constantly change so that one era’s stepchild is the next era’s golden boy. Much like how the International Style is undergoing a revival I’d wager within the next 25 years will see a neo-brutalism movement, much to many people’s horror no doubt. Brutalism was in many ways a reaction to the “sterility” of the glass curtain wall. What’s great about Washington is that it has the variety of architecture to absorb these waves into the overall fabric.
It’s looks like I’m the lone dissenter here, so I’ll clarify my remarks; some may think I’m backtracking, but that’s not what I intend. I think the new building is very attractive, more so than a number of the glass boxes we’ve seen go up lately. I’m actually quite glad to see this well-done building go up at this location. –But the fact of the matter is that no serious attempt was made to interact with the church building. Given the constraints of contemporary architectural vocabulary–i.e., what office tenants are going to expect, especially in buttoned-down Washington–there weren’t many good options, so the architects just went with the stark contrast of the glass on the K Street side. The terracotta on the Mass Ave side is warm and pleasant, but it’s a stretch to claim there’s some meaningful connection to the neoclassical white marble. I still maintain it was just too hard to seriously relate to the church, and thus the designers fell back on the “let’s go with a dramatic contrast” approach, because it was easy, obvious, and there were no other choices that anybody was likely to pay for.
“it would be very difficult to match up ANY other architectural style to neo-classical”
What? With all the neo-classical buildings sprinkled through out every historic neighborhood through out DC?
this shot, taken from further back, by flickr member ‘hohandy’ shows more of the context around 901K than mine does http://www.flickr.com/photos/46743559@N08/4342263627/
I actually prefer the K Street facade of this building. The somewhat haphazard layout of the white terra cotta panels on the ground floor is exquisite.
Correction: it is sandwiched between the Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church and the Henley Park Hotel, not the Carnegie Library Building.