New Condos on 14th Street NW
27 10 2010Well we finally have a name for the new development from JBG along 14th Street… District Condominiums. Based on the rather original name, we also now know that the 125 unit project is in fact going to go Condo. Sign of times to come?
The site of the former Whitman-Walker clinic is a great location for residential with Café Saint-Ex and the Black Cat, among others only steps away and we think adding some more residents to the neighborhood and more eyes on the streets will be a good thing, not so sure about the look of the Shalom Barnes designed building above though. Construction is scheduled to be complete by Spring 2012
[Rendering: Shalom Baranes]
Holy Gentrification Batman!
I can’t believe they are putting in something like this in a neighborhood like Logan Circle with so much character, what a shame!
Can you imagine the shreiks of horror if it looked like a turn-of-the-century apartment building? It’s not bad considering how ugly and souless some of Shalom’s work can be, and it seems to hit all the right notes.
I can only hope you’re kidding, Steven. Take a stroll up and down 14th Street and P Street sometime and see the structures that have sprung up along those streets during the past decade. Not a whole lot of “character” in those buildings, and JBG’s project certainly isn’t any worse.
Thayer wrote: Can you imagine the shreiks of horror if it looked like a turn-of-the-century apartment building?
Which century do you intend to refer to when you write “turn-of the century”. This looks like a finely crafted design that fits into it’s historical context while being of it’s time… this century.
And for the straw-man argument, exactly who in this town gets upset when a building is built using “historic” design principles? Please be specific… I can’t recall anyone being called out for failing to design “modern”.
Next time I’m wondering if a building is “of it’s time”, I’ll be sure to check with HFB, or, I can assume that it is of it’s time because it was done recently. Then, when I’m done playing silly style games, I can study it as the piece of modern architecture it is, regardless of what style the architect choose, and appreciate it on it’s own merits.
I very much appreciate the designs of the (very few) architects who can today design a building in a traditional architectural style and produce something admirable. Like most, some of my favorite buildings are over 100 years old. Regardless of my appreciation of the traditional, there is agreement that the buildings, clothing, poetry, sculpture, writing, paintings, movies, plays, music, etc. we create speak of who we are collectively today. Many designers/artists/etc. choose to design in ways that embrace the technology, materials, lifestyle, aesthetics, and sensibilities of the world they inhabit. Some choose to design in a way that appears as though it was created a century ago. These designers speak to a part of a diversity we enjoy today. While most architects (and their clients) may not understand or agree with this choice, they do not speak-out against traditional design. While they may be a small minority, the argument that architects designing in the traditional style are somehow a repressed group (shrieks of horror) has no foundation in my opinion. DC especially is very accepting of traditionally designed buildings, even the mediocre ones. DC also embraces mediocre modern buildings. When it comes to mediocrity, we are very accepting.
So we agree that this SBA designed building is a good design on its own merits, yeah… and it’s being built in a recession, yeah again! But we disagree on how traditional architecture is perceived or welcomed in this city. I haven’t heard the shrieks of horror.
So again Thayer-D, can you name a single traditional designed building in this city that received a negative reception because its design was judged too traditional or stylistically dated? Any building old enough to have been renamed twice doesn’t count (the 1870s were tough times for the for the Second Empire style).
“there is agreement that the buildings, clothing, poetry, sculpture, writing, paintings, movies, plays, music, etc. we create speak of who we are collectively today.”
“Some (architects) choose to design in a way that appears as though it was created a century ago”
You can’t reconcile those two sentences. By your criteria, all 19th and half of 20th century architecture in DC wasn’t “of its’ time” because the Palladian, Greek, Gothic, Romanesque, Classical, Italian, Spanish, Tudor and all other revival styles that constitute our most cherished neighborhoods where of previous eras. That’s not to say some proponents of those styles didn’t bloviate about what style was just and correct for their period, it’s just that any common sense analysis understands it’s just fashion applied to modern construction. For that matter, were the Italian Masters of the Rennaisance immitating Roman Classicism, or the Romans immitating the Greeks?
Humans learn by immitation, and some eventually achieve a synthesis that may be understood (by most) as an evolution of whatever art form towards something original, even though clearly indebted to some other period of history.
Modernism’s fetishising of the original was as idealistic and nonsensical as the communists’ belief that people would relinquish power voluntarily, it just dosen’t commpute with human nature. For that matter, most “modernism” of today that people proclaim is “of our time” had it’s genesis in Post WWI Europe, with early industrial roots on both sides of the Atlantic. Again, by your logic, it’s not of our time, or place.
So in this “battle of the styles” call me agnostic, or in the traditional parlance, eclectic. As with music, clothes, or food, if I like it, that’s all I care about. I like intellectualising about it as much as the next person, but if it’s not my cup of tea, it just isn’t, whatever the Pope, the Queen, or anyone else might think. Ironically, I always thought the freedom to choose was our perogative as “modern” people.
BTW, if this sentence were true “While most architects (and their clients) may not understand or agree with this choice, they do not speak-out against traditional design.” Southwest DC would be ‘the’ neighborhood to be in. But if property values where the barrometer, I think one could empiracly conclude that the public preferes traditional styles by and large. That being said, to my eye, modernist styled buildings tend to look their best when embedded in a traditional street scape, and we can both agree that Shalom did all right here, even though HPRB forced him to.
There was a really cool cubist building – maybe a hotel?-slated for the parking area next to Posto. Does anyone know what is happening with that? I would guess it has been shelved until the market improves?
@JNO – there is a post about that building on dcmud.blogspot.com. Sadly, the cubist style was re-worked and it’s something a little more common.
Ugh hideous. They are replacing a beautiful historic building (one that could use some work, sure) with another cookie cutter, cheap prefab condo. Soon the entire city will look like Chinatown. Aren’t there already dozens of condos sitting empty in C.Heights, Chinatown and elsewhere?
At what point does the city turn into the suburbs?
[...] all these ground breaking ceremonies left and right, up today is the new (and creatively named) District Condos from JBG along 14th St NW. First up is to raze the buildings currently on the site near S street and then commence with the [...]
ADAV what historic building, there is no history about that drab building which was there. As someone who lives in this neighborhood I welcome it, now if we could get rid if the trash and scum on R Street we would ALL benefit from lower crime and a cleaner area!