Judging New Construction – Warder and Luray Pl, NW

Thanks to a reader for suggesting I take some photos of this new construction at the corner of Warder and Luray Pl, NW.

What do you think – thumbs up or down?

More photos after the jump.

50 Comment

  • Is that siding?

    • Yes it’s siding, the ugly green parts that is. The huge brown square is a painted cement compound.

      I’m a neighbor and really don’t like it. I mean really add a row of molding or something around the top. They could have at least tried to match the surronding block.

      The property was cut into three units after they built this monster in the side yard following the passing of the long time owner. Now we have 469 A (the original house on the right side), B, & C (two new two floor condos)…

      Also the big boy blocks out the morning sun darn it. Need to change my garden plants I guess.

  • It may technically be siding. But when you look it at in person it has a slightly different look/texture than traditional siding. It reminds me of the faux pressure-treated wood they make waterproof decks out of. The material is what many apartments in Portland/Seattle are made off. I wish I knew what it was called.

  • I try not to be a NIMBY but I hate it. This wasn’t even a lot. A developer bought an end unit rowhouse and then flipped the rowhouse and built this weird thing off the side. The whole thing is a multi-unit townhouse with the original rowhome being one, and 2-3 units within the new building.

  • Fugly. It doesn’t even attempt to blend with its surroundings or with the other homes.

    • this house has no responsibility to be any more sensitive to the neighboring houses than it already is. that said, the siding is hideous. I don’t mind the design, but if I were the next door neighbor, I’d be pissed that I lost all the sunlight in the front.

      • Inanimate objects like houses generally lack responsibilities and sensitivity. But I don’t understand why its front wall is allowed to intrude onto the public space (“parking” in dc speak), which is why it is blocking its neighbor’s sunlight. If it is illegally built then the neighbors can sue to have it TORN DOWN. And maybe they should?

        • Of course the responsibility is with the owner, but you already knew that. Instead of sarcastic nitpicking, you might want to educate yourself:

          The court in Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. held that the free flow of light and air across adjoining land and structures is not the lawful right if a landowner. Where a structure serves a useful purpose, it does not constitute a nuisance when light or air are cut off from an adjoining property, even if the structure in question was built partly for spite.

          Now you know.

  • Emmaleigh504

    I like the style, but it’s too big for that space. I think it would look a lot better if it were 2 stories like the rest of the houses.

  • Its bad enough that its ugly and doesnt fit the street at all, but then it looks to be completely casting a shadow over the house next door. This atrocity is blocking their sun. Id be really upset if I were the owners next door.

  • Anyone know what the apartment / condo numbers will be?

    The primary address is: 469 Luray Pl NW

  • Thumbs so far down they are about to fall off. In person it looks like the absolutely cheapest materials were used.

    The parkviewdc blog did a step by step of how this was illegally purchased and built.

  • Seattle/Portland: Yes
    D.C.: No (although a lot houses that look like this one are popping up all over southeast in those new HUD neighborhoods.)

    • That was pretty much my opinion. I live on Warder and see this out my front door. It’s not so much that its ugly, its just in the wrong setting. I could see it working in a shore/bay area or north west, but it just seems out of place here.

  • that red house doesn’t jive with the rest of the earth toned row. t.a.c.k.y.

  • I live on this block, and this thing is a major eye sore. The more trendy condos further up on Warder across from the school are tasteful, this isn’t. It’s too tall and painted in a color palette I can only describe as inspired by excretions from a baby.

  • Why do some units at the end of streets have a lot of windows when others do not? Is it a zoning or permit thing? Or a design choice? For instance, why aren’t their more windows on the second level? I’m also thinking of the big condo building on Georgia next to the Wendy’s that doesn’t have many window units on the south-facing side. Thanks!

    Personally, as for this building, I’m not a fan and I would even going so far to say that I’d be slightly embarrassed to live on that block in there instead of one of the row houses. I’m sure somebody will make happy homes of it though!

    • staircase?

    • Because maybe you have artwork to display?

      • lol, that’s gracious of you to think that the designers are that thoughtful.

        it doesn’t look like the staircase is on the lefthand side but even if it is i can think of plenty of places with windows near/around staircases and/or places that just have a big blank wall like that without a staircase. i seem to remember reading, one time, that windows had something to do with zoning on a pop thread. i don’t remember and wanted to see if anyone knows for sure. thanks!

  • I like it. A big improvement to the neighborhood.

  • I love this style of architecture (minus the siding part), but this is way out of place.

  • i think the white trim is what makes it look cheap. the lack of a cornice doesn’t help.

  • i generally like interesting / modern architecture but this is crap

  • That looks awful. How could ANYONE in city government allow a permit to rip up that nice red brick townhouse and throw up some prefab piece of shit? Luray used to be a nice peaceful one-block row of fairly uniform town homes and now this monstrosity on the corner. Sad….

    • Also, it looks like next door “neighbors” will never again have a sunny porch.

      • Actually their front porch receives the morning & afternoon sun right up to about 5pm… Southern exposure.

        • They didn’t remove a rowhome. The rowhome to the left used to be the end unit. They bought the end unit and built this on the side-yard.

          • Yup–you’re right. Still looks ugly though. I remember when there was a rusty old car in that yard. Looked better than what’s there now.

        • Yeah, their front porch gets morning and afternoon sun, right up until it doesn’t thanks to the pre fab on the corner.

    • I’m guessing the city allowed it because they don’t really give a shit about the look of the city, but they care very deeply about money. Just a guess.

      • It is a little unfair to blame the city for this building. For the most part, the permitting process does not address design – as long as the project meets zoning regulations (height, setbacks, use) and the technical aspects of the buliding code (structure, utilities, fire safety, etc.) the city’s doesn’t get involved in how a proposed project looks. There are exceptions to this, such as if the property is in an historic district, or is a large project making use of special planning regulations. With a small project like this, the look of the project is not the city’s business. So, if you don’t like this building, it is the developer/owner who deserves your scorn.

        • The developer does get my scorn but the city is also responsible for allowing this to get built. Did you see the stop work order for working beyond the permit. They essentially allowed the developer to sneak this in.

  • I think this house would be OK in a row of similarly modern rowhouses… but in its actual location, it’s completely out of place.

    It’s not just the architectural style, materials, etc. but also the fact that it’s not even in the front with the rest of the block. It’s like it’s saying “F*** you!” to its neighbors.

    I hate the pop-up at 2714 Ontario Road (which also protrudes in front beyond its neighbors), but this Luray Place monstrosity might make the Ontario Road one look good in comparison.

  • This is so ugly, it hurts my eyes – the two styles they combine clash too much (they should have chosen one or the other). If these units go on the market, can we have this as a GDON? I would love to see how much the developers ask for these units and how long it takes them to sell.

  • From the looks of it, I would love to live *in* it. But as it stands now, I’m not too thrilled to live *near* it.

  • Ugly, ugly, ugly! Tear it down! This designer / architect should be expelled from architecture school. This has to be the work of a poorly trained student. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. This is what happens when money grubbing speculators flip properties for quick profit and don’t care about the city.

    It also appears illegal since they have constructed on public space.

  • From the back and side it looks like 3 trailer homes stacked on top of each other. Clazzzy.

  • I wouldn’t mind this if all the other places on the same side of the street were just like it. Sometimes the new blends well with the old but this isn’t one of those cases.

    It looks the gawky kid in the school picture who hit their growth spurt before everyone else.

Comments are closed.