Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > District of Columbia > Washington, DC
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2009, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
104 posts, read 251,987 times
Reputation: 128

Advertisements

Prior to Home Rule in 1973 DC, was governed by a nine-member City Council appointed by the US President and a Commissioner who acted like a mayor. I am not sure when, but before that there was a 3-member commission responsible for DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2009, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
104 posts, read 251,987 times
Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14thandYou View Post
You'd be shocked at how many boards, commissions and agencies have a say over what, where and how buildings are built in DC. For a standard office building in downtown or one of the neighboring historic areas encircling the central city, you may see involvement from the Office of Planning, the Board of Zoning, the Historic Preservation Review Board, Department of Transportation, Council on Fine Arts, National Capital Planning Commission, Advisory Neighborhood Commission and neighborhood citizens groups.

Sometimes it shocks me that anything gets built in this city. And then I am equally shocked at the things that *do* get built.
All these review bodies, in addition to the height restrictions, lead to some pretty unimpressive architecture in DC. Most new construction over the past several decades has been very bland. There are some exceptions (new Foster-designed atrium of American Portrait Gallery, IIE Building on Mass. Ave.) but they tend to prove the rule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Rockville, MD
3,546 posts, read 8,535,999 times
Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by InDC View Post
All these review bodies, in addition to the height restrictions, lead to some pretty unimpressive architecture in DC. Most new construction over the past several decades has been very bland. There are some exceptions (new Foster-designed atrium of American Portrait Gallery, IIE Building on Mass. Ave.) but they tend to prove the rule.
I agree. Travel up and down corridors like 14th Street or Mass Ave. east of Mt. Vernon Square, and it is bland city. All of those condo projects in "NoMa" are so ridiculously sterile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
104 posts, read 251,987 times
Reputation: 128
Yeah, it is sad that the city has such bland buildings. All those historic preservation reviews have lead to an interesting phenom where cool architectural details are found only on the inside of buildings hidden from sight: Atrium of Nat'l Portrait Gallery (I mentioned this before), Poste restaurant courtyard inside of Hotel Monaco, interior of Reagan Int'l Trade Center.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 08:27 PM
 
Location: H street NE
188 posts, read 668,873 times
Reputation: 51
I'd argue that DC has a ton of gorgeous architecture but all of it is at least 60 years old. What happened? Why did we forget how to build grand buildings? I kind of feel bad for our kids. We're leaving them with some really uninspired architecture that will fall apart quickly.

I kind of like Senate Square near Union Station. Its significantly less offensive than many I've seen. I also like the building on the confluence of K, NY and 9th st NW. It's got a dome on its roof that looks skyline-y
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC
2,010 posts, read 3,446,944 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellyofthebeast View Post
I'd argue that DC has a ton of gorgeous architecture but all of it is at least 60 years old. What happened? Why did we forget how to build grand buildings? I kind of feel bad for our kids. We're leaving them with some really uninspired architecture that will fall apart quickly.
Couldn't agree with you more. I'm not sure if it's the cost of labor, or the decline of skilled craftsmen or something else entirely.

My house was built in the 1800's. It was originally two tiny houses. But despite the fact that the families that lived there/built/owned the homes were not wealthy, the masonry is absolutely masterful. With only a modest amount of maintenance it will be solid for centuries.

I don't have a clue what it would cost to construct something like that now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Rockville, MD
3,546 posts, read 8,535,999 times
Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellyofthebeast View Post
I'd argue that DC has a ton of gorgeous architecture but all of it is at least 60 years old. What happened? Why did we forget how to build grand buildings? I kind of feel bad for our kids. We're leaving them with some really uninspired architecture that will fall apart quickly.
Oh, DC has a ton of gorgeous architecture. I'd argue that it's one of the most aesthetically pleasing cities in the country. But, as you mention, that's largely based upon construction that occured more than 60 years ago. There have been some decent buildings erected since that time (I love the Franklin Square towers, for instance), but they're few and far between.

Part of the issue is the availability of skilled crafttsmen to handle the architectural detail so prevalent in older buildings. This is particularly true in the older, residential neighborhoods. The other issue is cost--it's frequently cost-prohibitive to construct buildings as architecturally interesting as the ones from a century ago. That said, even in terms of modern architecture, DC seems to be lagging behind. I, for one, would have loved to have seen the new Corcoran wing--designed by Frank Gehry--constructed, but alas it was not to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 10:02 PM
 
4,796 posts, read 22,848,232 times
Reputation: 5046
The issue of craftsmanship existing in older buildings but lacking in newer buildings is not unique to DC or even the US.

Some of it is simply a loss of knowledge. As modern styles have prevailed, fewer and fewer craftsmen get experience in fine woodworking or brickwork.

Some of it is the emergence of unions over guilds. Guilds were very strong in providing craftsmen training; unions mostly focus on legal matters.

Some of it is construction technology. Most of what we consider today 'craftsmanship' was at the time merely a way of building safely with the materials available. A lot of brickwork pattern was a means of making a brick wall stronger. Today brick needs only to be a cladding material because we can use steel and concrete materials for strength. Ornate detailed wood bracketry supporting a fireplace mantle were a means of whittling down the brackets to consume the least amount of wood possible while still providing the necessary strength to support the cantilevered plane of the mantle. Today we can just use steel bracketry. The ornate detailing is just decorative. Since it adds no necessary value to the object, the cost of the material and labor to produce such detailing is a luxury and an extravagance.

Often people think our painted rowhomes are so beautiful, colorful, and unique compared to 'bland' newer construction, but they didn't look that way when they were built. They were all the same, just like suburban developments are today. The paint was added years later, and not because the homeowner wanted color, but because the brick was crumbling or the mortar was eroding, and paint is the cheapest means of holding everything together. Given time to mature, newer construction could very possibly achieve the same unique aesthetic. Times 100 years ago and more were no more immune to the affliction of ugly architecture than we are. But just as happens today, the uglier stuff didn't survive. People tore them down or renovated them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2009, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Rockville, MD
3,546 posts, read 8,535,999 times
Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodaka View Post
Often people think our painted rowhomes are so beautiful, colorful, and unique compared to 'bland' newer construction, but they didn't look that way when they were built.
Granted, part of my affinity for older homes is because I simply prefer the Victorian aesthetic. But it's important to keep in mind that the DC neighborhoods that are home to some of the most ornate and gorgeous rowhouses--Dupont, Logan, Georgetown, Kalorama--are neighborhoods that were, at the time the houses were built, home to some of the most moneyed individuals in the city.

What you see in a neighborhood like Dupont is not working-class housing, it was designed to be ornate and luxurious. The intricate stone carvings, brickwork, copper roofs and so forth were all signs of wealth. These weren't the Toll Brothers homes of their day, they were (and, in many cases, are) homes for Washington's elite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 06:51 PM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,661,162 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14thandYou View Post
Oh, DC has a ton of gorgeous architecture. I'd argue that it's one of the most aesthetically pleasing cities in the country. But, as you mention, that's largely based upon construction that occured more than 60 years ago. There have been some decent buildings erected since that time (I love the Franklin Square towers, for instance), but they're few and far between.

Part of the issue is the availability of skilled crafttsmen to handle the architectural detail so prevalent in older buildings. This is particularly true in the older, residential neighborhoods. The other issue is cost--it's frequently cost-prohibitive to construct buildings as architecturally interesting as the ones from a century ago. That said, even in terms of modern architecture, DC seems to be lagging behind. I, for one, would have loved to have seen the new Corcoran wing--designed by Frank Gehry--constructed, but alas it was not to be.
I actually kind of like the new steel-and-glass condos (such as those near your namesake intersection). They bring a much needed air of modernity to a city too often associated with ancient Rome.

I don't think you'll see the extravagant architecture anymore because styles have shifted toward minimalism. Plus, there's a lot of LEED sustainability codes that builders try to meet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > District of Columbia > Washington, DC
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top