8 Comment

  • nope, sure don’t… not with that window. interesting addition

  • Nope, for two reasons: The window is totally out of place, and the cornice doesn’t extend all the way around. Looks pretty amateurish.

  • the details may not be right, but i think this is a great way to do a pop up.

  • I wonder how such a bizarre addition got past the historic review board?

  • Yay! I walk past that house all the time on the way to Eastern Market! It’s also home to the clown-wigged squatting skeleton photo from last week. The I’m told that it used to be two houses vertically, then it was merged into one property with two finished levels. The owners live on the top floor (entrance on 9th) and they rent the lower level (entrance on C). Folks in the lower level were totally decked out last night for Halloween!

  • I think it is original but that window was changed.

  • I’ve looked at this several times and I have to go with not original. I think if you look really closely in the area below the arched window, where the cornice would normally extend, there is a slight change in brickwork.

    As to how it got past the historic preservation committee, I think it may still be older than the committee, or at least before the committee’s had much power. Take a look at the wood molding around the parapet and how much paint build-up it appears to have.

    My verdict: At least 35 years old, but probably not original.

  • These people need to cut back that plant on the corner more often. They’re certainly not the worst on the Hill, but emblematic of corner-house owners.

Comments are closed.