Demolition OK’d for historic church after maintenance found too costly
By: Hayley Peterson
Special to The Examiner
05/14/09 10:05 PM EDT
Maintenance costs trumped calls for preservation in the Third Church of Christ’s 18-year battle for demolition rights over its 16th Street building near the White House.
The director of D.C.’s planning office approved the Christian Scientists’ bid for demolition rights on Wednesday and concluded maintenance costs for the 40-year-old building were too steep for the church to finance.
Now, the century-old congregation will petition its former development partner, ICG Properties, to fund construction of a new church.
Demolition and reconstruction will begin in about one year, said J. Darrow Kirkpatrick, chairman of the church’s redevelopment committee.
“We need to redesign the building and work carefully with the historic preservation board and the advisory neighborhood commission,” he said. “If we get approval [of the design] we would be knocking again on the doors of ICG Properties.”
In her 29-page report, development office director Harriet Tregoning wrote, “The denial of the permit would result in the inevitable demise of the Third Church as a downtown congregation,” considering the church’s expenses averaged $44,000 more than its $225,000 income in 2007.
Tregoning, who was appointed as arbiter in the matter by Mayor Adrian Fenty, referred to maintenance reports detailing structural deterioration of the building, water leakage, and heating and cooling problems.
The conflict between the D.C. Preservation League and the Third Church began in 1991, when the church was nominated for historic preservation.
The building, completed in 1971, is an example of brutalist architecture, a style that uses mainly concrete in blocky, angular design.
ICG had backed away from the lengthy battle between church members and preservationists in May 2008.
Company executive David Stern said Thursday that his firm left the partnership because the church was pursuing federal litigation against the city. As for funding the redesign, Stern said, “We own the building, so we certainly have an interest. We are happy to reassess the option.”
Kirkpatrick said the Kerns Group of Arlington would design the new church.
The Third Church congregation will have a say in the new design, said Amy Myers, a church member involved in obtaining the demolition permit.
Myers said some of the qualities sought for the new building include “sustainable, welcoming, modifiable so the community can use it, and lots of light.”
... some thoughtful commentary on the following blog..
That's unfortunate. That's one of the most interesting pieces of architecture on that corner -- not saying I'm an apologist for brutalist architecture.
So what's the matter with being an apologist for brutalist architecture? I'd argue that blog commenters assailing brutalism are getting to be like Republicans assailing Dijon mustard.
In 10 years transparency won't be cool anymore and people will regret tearing down or altering all these brutalist buildings. Architecture has been bouncing back and fourth between transparency and opacity every 20-25 years for the past 125 years. We're about due for the pendulum to swing back.
interesting that in the second link, the caption says that weese's church on the corner of waker/water/wabash is under no threat of demolition... thats actually not true, as there were several private developers pining over the site in the early 2000's... some experimental schemes calling for super high rise use on the site gained a bit of traction though the thing eventually fell through... bottom line is the plot of land is just way, way, way too valuable to remain such a low income use for much longer... sad as it may be...
It's overall safer, lessens crime, makes people buy more and overall is relatively healthier in compact or urban areas.
That's a sweeping generalization for which I'd like to see some hard evidence. There are many building typologies for which excess transparency tends to do exactly the opposite of all those things - the urban place of worship being a prime example.
Anyway, I'm not here to defend either opacity or transparency. I love a lot of the transparent (i.e. predominantly glass) buildings that have emerged lately and think many are well suited to their program. But I do feel that architects have once again become unhealthfully obsessed with glass facades. When I see all-glass museums where most of the daylighting has to be mitigated on the interior anyway, I start to wonder whether all this glass isn't the result of a fad rather than the product of design appropriateness.
That's what makes me think the pendulum is about to swing back.
I'll find some stuff... I still have most of my planning books.
I know one of the biggest reasons glass is king because glass didn't really exist in the 1950s. At least not the glass we know and see. It was impossible to make some of the expanses of glass commonly used in construction, ie single pane windows... double and tripled paned windows... windows over 4' by 4'.
"There are many building typologies for which excess transparency tends to do exactly the opposite of all those things - the urban place of worship being a prime example."
I don't necessarily believe this one considering that until churches broke away from gothic and neoclassical styles... churches have some of the highest transparency compared to other buildings. Churches have been some of the few buildings historically with actual glass windows. Chartres has an unbelievable amount of glass windows in the wall. And let's not forget the clear story... where the entire second story expanse was nothing but windows.
Architects went crazy for glass in the late 1800's and then shyed away from it in the early 20th century. Went crazy for it again in the 50's and shyed away again in the late 60's.
As for transparency, I don't think we're looking at it in quite the same way. Even most brutalist buildings like the church that started this thread have transparency in the sence of allowing daylight to enter. I'm referring to transparency more in the sense of views, particularly about viewing into and through the building unobstructed from the exterior ground plane. There aren't many places of worship where one can do this (especially in urban settings), either modern or historical.
maybe for some transparency isn't just about daylighting and views. it can represent openness and accessibility... as in being able to see the structural elements and what is contained therein. perhaps it is a move away from the privacy or mystery that sometimes comprises the built form. personally, i love being able to see naked structures and skeletons. architecture porn?
DC ok's demo of I.M. Pei's brutalist church
As seen in the paper..
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Demolition-OKd-for-historic-church--after-maintenance-found-too-costly_05_15-45052737.html
Demolition OK’d for historic church after maintenance found too costly
By: Hayley Peterson
Special to The Examiner
05/14/09 10:05 PM EDT
Maintenance costs trumped calls for preservation in the Third Church of Christ’s 18-year battle for demolition rights over its 16th Street building near the White House.
The director of D.C.’s planning office approved the Christian Scientists’ bid for demolition rights on Wednesday and concluded maintenance costs for the 40-year-old building were too steep for the church to finance.
Now, the century-old congregation will petition its former development partner, ICG Properties, to fund construction of a new church.
Demolition and reconstruction will begin in about one year, said J. Darrow Kirkpatrick, chairman of the church’s redevelopment committee.
“We need to redesign the building and work carefully with the historic preservation board and the advisory neighborhood commission,” he said. “If we get approval [of the design] we would be knocking again on the doors of ICG Properties.”
In her 29-page report, development office director Harriet Tregoning wrote, “The denial of the permit would result in the inevitable demise of the Third Church as a downtown congregation,” considering the church’s expenses averaged $44,000 more than its $225,000 income in 2007.
Tregoning, who was appointed as arbiter in the matter by Mayor Adrian Fenty, referred to maintenance reports detailing structural deterioration of the building, water leakage, and heating and cooling problems.
The conflict between the D.C. Preservation League and the Third Church began in 1991, when the church was nominated for historic preservation.
The building, completed in 1971, is an example of brutalist architecture, a style that uses mainly concrete in blocky, angular design.
ICG had backed away from the lengthy battle between church members and preservationists in May 2008.
Company executive David Stern said Thursday that his firm left the partnership because the church was pursuing federal litigation against the city. As for funding the redesign, Stern said, “We own the building, so we certainly have an interest. We are happy to reassess the option.”
Kirkpatrick said the Kerns Group of Arlington would design the new church.
The Third Church congregation will have a say in the new design, said Amy Myers, a church member involved in obtaining the demolition permit.
Myers said some of the qualities sought for the new building include “sustainable, welcoming, modifiable so the community can use it, and lots of light.”
... some thoughtful commentary on the following blog..
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/05/slippery-slope-of-economic-hardship.html
That's unfortunate. That's one of the most interesting pieces of architecture on that corner -- not saying I'm an apologist for brutalist architecture.
So what's the matter with being an apologist for brutalist architecture? I'd argue that blog commenters assailing brutalism are getting to be like Republicans assailing Dijon mustard.
In 10 years transparency won't be cool anymore and people will regret tearing down or altering all these brutalist buildings. Architecture has been bouncing back and fourth between transparency and opacity every 20-25 years for the past 125 years. We're about due for the pendulum to swing back.
Rondo, I'm neither an apologist nor an antagonist of brutalist architecture. There are many that are actually quite nice.
YES YESYES
4arch, unfortunately for you [architects]... planners are grasping heavily onto the idea of transparency.
It's overall safer, lessens crime, makes people buy more and overall is relatively healthier in compact or urban areas.
interesting that in the second link, the caption says that weese's church on the corner of waker/water/wabash is under no threat of demolition... thats actually not true, as there were several private developers pining over the site in the early 2000's... some experimental schemes calling for super high rise use on the site gained a bit of traction though the thing eventually fell through... bottom line is the plot of land is just way, way, way too valuable to remain such a low income use for much longer... sad as it may be...
That's a sweeping generalization for which I'd like to see some hard evidence. There are many building typologies for which excess transparency tends to do exactly the opposite of all those things - the urban place of worship being a prime example.
Anyway, I'm not here to defend either opacity or transparency. I love a lot of the transparent (i.e. predominantly glass) buildings that have emerged lately and think many are well suited to their program. But I do feel that architects have once again become unhealthfully obsessed with glass facades. When I see all-glass museums where most of the daylighting has to be mitigated on the interior anyway, I start to wonder whether all this glass isn't the result of a fad rather than the product of design appropriateness.
That's what makes me think the pendulum is about to swing back.
I'll find some stuff... I still have most of my planning books.
I know one of the biggest reasons glass is king because glass didn't really exist in the 1950s. At least not the glass we know and see. It was impossible to make some of the expanses of glass commonly used in construction, ie single pane windows... double and tripled paned windows... windows over 4' by 4'.
"There are many building typologies for which excess transparency tends to do exactly the opposite of all those things - the urban place of worship being a prime example."
I don't necessarily believe this one considering that until churches broke away from gothic and neoclassical styles... churches have some of the highest transparency compared to other buildings. Churches have been some of the few buildings historically with actual glass windows. Chartres has an unbelievable amount of glass windows in the wall. And let's not forget the clear story... where the entire second story expanse was nothing but windows.
Architects went crazy for glass in the late 1800's and then shyed away from it in the early 20th century. Went crazy for it again in the 50's and shyed away again in the late 60's.
As for transparency, I don't think we're looking at it in quite the same way. Even most brutalist buildings like the church that started this thread have transparency in the sence of allowing daylight to enter. I'm referring to transparency more in the sense of views, particularly about viewing into and through the building unobstructed from the exterior ground plane. There aren't many places of worship where one can do this (especially in urban settings), either modern or historical.
maybe for some transparency isn't just about daylighting and views. it can represent openness and accessibility... as in being able to see the structural elements and what is contained therein. perhaps it is a move away from the privacy or mystery that sometimes comprises the built form. personally, i love being able to see naked structures and skeletons. architecture porn?
I like grossly long URLs
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.