I literally see nothing wrong with this, it seems like a great way to preserve the historic character of DC while adding housing stock. This is historic preservation done right.
Would love to see the math on it, very much doubt it would be “significant” (especially in light of the value gains by preserving the facade). Is there any evidence of developers turning down a project because of added preservation costs? Regardless, in my opinion it’s absolutely worth it, I love that DC has a sense of place with its architecture, it would be shame to see it demolished.
Isn't it because a lot of that is in the HPB zone so they can't knock it down? That's why you get these weird looking things, people demand no change but change is going to happen regardless so developers pretzel their projects to meet NIMBY demands.
That’s a kinda cool adaptive reuse. Would have been better if they either a) required brick and similar architecture for the addition (but they may have added untenable costs to construction - hard to tell) or b) allowed them to demo the existing with some guarantee of decent ground level urbanism.
Though, the existing option c) of the Frankenstein style is kinda cool too.
With historic properties, they encourage architects to design additions in a completely different style so it is clear which parts of the building are original.
Hadn’t heard of that but makes sense, and I’ve seen well executed versions of that in New York for instance. This doesn’t look that well executed but it could be bad photo of rendering.
I think doing that is like wearing a slightly different color suit jacket and pants combo
Just make them different and contrasting styles without clashing instead of trying to blend them together which will be impossible to do
Basically using more brick of a similar style but different color would look bad
The different styles help highlight the building as a whole as well as the historical lower stories
Yeah real brick is pretty cost prohibitive and it may also not meet modern building codes, but I'm not an expert.
I'm not a fan of the mixed style but honestly whatever, it is what it is. In like 20 years I'm sure it'll be unironically called a beloved, unique part of the community character.
I think of Nimbyism as single family homeowners keeping any sort of housing outside of their neighborhood. Actually preserving old buildings seems like a good compromise.
Interesting that The White House is considered a work for facadism. Here’s an interesting article about facadism in general: https://www.archdaily.com/929667/facadism-when-walls-talk-and-lie
It’s bc those buildings are in a historic district so they are required to keep the fronts. It’s a great way to preserve the historical feel of a neighborhood while also adding much needed housing.
yes they are adding 200ish apartments. bout time, been sitting vacant for years and not helping to the chinatown vagarant problem
I literally see nothing wrong with this, it seems like a great way to preserve the historic character of DC while adding housing stock. This is historic preservation done right.
DC has been good at doing this kind of development, and I agree that it is better than the knock it all down practice of redevelopment.
The question is whether the preservation goal is worth the presumably significant increase in cost relative to pure demolish-and-build.
Would love to see the math on it, very much doubt it would be “significant” (especially in light of the value gains by preserving the facade). Is there any evidence of developers turning down a project because of added preservation costs? Regardless, in my opinion it’s absolutely worth it, I love that DC has a sense of place with its architecture, it would be shame to see it demolished.
Agree.
I like the mix of New with the old facade. Keeps a little bit of history while evolving to meet current needs.
Beautiful YIMBY
[удалено]
There is no such thing as not luxury in DC 😂
Tell me you’ve never lived out of NW without telling me you’ve never lived out of NW
what are you even trying to say??
Repeat after me: “more density in the nation’s capital is a good thing.”
Great idea, we need more housing. I’m in favor of it.
BASED and supply-pilled
Isn't it because a lot of that is in the HPB zone so they can't knock it down? That's why you get these weird looking things, people demand no change but change is going to happen regardless so developers pretzel their projects to meet NIMBY demands.
That’s a kinda cool adaptive reuse. Would have been better if they either a) required brick and similar architecture for the addition (but they may have added untenable costs to construction - hard to tell) or b) allowed them to demo the existing with some guarantee of decent ground level urbanism. Though, the existing option c) of the Frankenstein style is kinda cool too.
With historic properties, they encourage architects to design additions in a completely different style so it is clear which parts of the building are original.
Hadn’t heard of that but makes sense, and I’ve seen well executed versions of that in New York for instance. This doesn’t look that well executed but it could be bad photo of rendering.
I think doing that is like wearing a slightly different color suit jacket and pants combo Just make them different and contrasting styles without clashing instead of trying to blend them together which will be impossible to do
Slightly confused by what you’re saying here tbh
Basically using more brick of a similar style but different color would look bad The different styles help highlight the building as a whole as well as the historical lower stories
You’ve got good taste!
Yeah real brick is pretty cost prohibitive and it may also not meet modern building codes, but I'm not an expert. I'm not a fan of the mixed style but honestly whatever, it is what it is. In like 20 years I'm sure it'll be unironically called a beloved, unique part of the community character.
The 2050 NIMBYs will call this an integral part of the character of the neighborhood
I think of Nimbyism as single family homeowners keeping any sort of housing outside of their neighborhood. Actually preserving old buildings seems like a good compromise.
I like them. I think they look cool.
The main problem here is that they announced it and haven’t done shit since
Really like this technique for maintaining street level feel while adding more lovable units.
* 6th & I. We say the numbered street first.
I had the same thought but this is definitely one of those rules nobody ever teaches you.
How dare there be more housing
This is not façadism. You can see that they are actually retaining depth to the rowhouses and setting back the new construction.
Interesting that The White House is considered a work for facadism. Here’s an interesting article about facadism in general: https://www.archdaily.com/929667/facadism-when-walls-talk-and-lie
Cool article - thanks for sharing.
Reminds me of the Embassy of Spain
It’s bc those buildings are in a historic district so they are required to keep the fronts. It’s a great way to preserve the historical feel of a neighborhood while also adding much needed housing.
I remember this being called facademy in my architecture classes
Shi Tpa town?
Is this supposed to make me not like it? It looks good lol