30 Comment

  • saf


    First I thought, looks like a school, or a prison. Then I saw that second shot. Oh wow.

  • i love these. i think they totally work on the street and add some fresh modern feel. instead of ruining the street with out of context designs, these really add a cool flavor.

  • Not great, not terrible. Mediocre. Kind of remind me of the architecture of my middle school, though (which was built in 1963).

    In fifth glance, a little space-agey for my tastes (space age=the ’60s, the world of tomorrow!).

  • huh. I wanted to hate these right away, but I keep stalling for some reason. Look like pretty sweet skylights.

  • gorgeous and they look well made. i bet they’re phenomenal inside.

  • These look great. Modern, but fit the historic context of the city. Folks shouldn’t be swayed by the blank wall — it’s likely that featurelessness (I made that word up) is all that could be done with that wall given the size of the end lot and applicable building restrictions.

  • Faux Bauhaus? Not a fan.

    Those weird brick slabs stuck on the front are rather jarring.

  • How’s this Truxton Circle?

  • Prince Of Petworth

    I wasn’t 100% certain but if you minimize the bubble and look at the map it says Truxton Circle right above. What neighborhood would you say this is?

  • Yeah, they could be classier, but they look clean and simple. Plus, they’re enormous. I’d live in one.

  • This is Mt. Vernon Square. Truxton Circle is the other side of New Jersey Ave and north…

    Looks like you can rent one for $3,295 – yikes!


  • Ugh. The industrial front doors… the terrible grey mailboxes… the fact that they all look the same and are inhabited by Stepford-like humanpods from the future who are all going to step outside at the same time and get into their identical flying cars… (okay, flying cars would be cool)

    And, way, way, way too close to the street.

  • And even worse after seeing those pictures of the back! It’d be like living in an industrial park somewhere. The concrete separating the patios is terrible. Why would you ever want to sit outside in a concrete box???

  • Like the 1960s film version of Fahrenheit 451.

  • I think they look great; an elegant modern take on the DC Rowhouse. I go by these fairly often and they look much better in person than the photos. From what I can see that aren’t occupied yet, and some of the problems mentioned about their inhumanity stems from the fact that their are none of the signs of life and personalization that hapens once people move in and add their own personal touches.

  • That looks like a scene from a scarry futuristic movie where everyone has their personality wiped and walks around like drones.

  • Would be alright if it weren’t for the toxic neighborhood. Believe me, around there the architecture or style of the houses would be the least of your problems.

  • These were for sale/rent in early 2008. The developer was looking to make his/her investment back either way. There’s parking in the back, and there are private terraces, but the 1B units have small bedrooms, and the neighborhood is somewhat desolate. Bought at Langston Lofts instead.

  • If you want a vision of the future, imagine a car parking on a grassy lot end lot, next to a blank wall — forever.

  • From the front, the doors and windows look (for lack of a better word) blank. Unwelcoming.

    I like windows that open & these don’t look open-able. And I bet the doors never wind up as a “door of the day.”

  • http://www.investorsmanagement.net/web/catid/1/rentals.asp

    as expected the interiors are awesome. that wall of windows is amazing. and the person who complained about “the back” is missing something – that’s not the back, it’s a roof deck!!

  • Thumbs so far down, they’re bustin’ out the other side.

  • @eric in ledroit – not the roof deck, the ground level patios. Hideous and awful. The roofdeck can’t save these from themselves.

  • These were built as “for sale” units but couldn’t sell for the ridiculous asking prices (close to $1 mil each for the larger units about 2 years ago). The same architect also designed the crazy looking church that was a PoP picture a few months ago.

  • Definitely not designed for rental. You should be able to fit a lot more than 2 bedrooms into 2500+ sq ft

  • These are actually *very* high quality finishes on the inside. The architect is Suzanne Reatig. She is local and her office is right by the O Street giant. There are lots of smaller, similar properties around Shaw that are actually owned by the united house of prayer for all people church and rented out.

  • I’m with loganmo – I don’t usually like modern architecture very much, but these are really beautiful. And I think the fronts that look like blank rowhouses are actually very clever.

  • Ugh…look at those staircases. That poured concrete is hideous.

  • Ouch. Those are just harsh. FAIL.

  • I love the traditional older row homes, but I must say that these are very striking. If it weren’t for the very sketchy ‘hood, these would be even more attractive.

Comments are closed.