33 Comment

  • don’t know about the grey material, but love the colors. not that funky, but still a nice change from the generally stodgy dc architecture.

  • I kind of like the colors but I was hoping they were going to line up as they went across the building. Not sure what they are doing now, though. Have to wait for the finished product.

  • Ug-a-ly!!!

    You may think normal is stodgy now but in 10 years that romper room looking trash will be hated by all!

  • Updated prison look. That grey sucks.

  • Reatig is awful. Her firm is single handedly ruining the historic look of Shaw. She has thrown up nearly a dozen of these terrible looking grey boxes. Please take your “talents” elsewhere.

    • Looks like public housing in Denmark or Germany from the late 60’s. Europe is tearing this down and we are building it.Slow learning curve.

  • The three colors don’t go together. The grey looks cheap. I had such high hopes for this building and I’m already sick of walking past it each day.

    • I like it too, although I would be against having too many more of these in shaw. A few are great, they add a little diversity. Too many would be a little irritating.

  • I almost like it, and am withholding final judgement until it’s finished. But for right now, the grey does look a bit cheap. And I wonder how the color will wear over time.

  • Whatever – there is no pleasing the people on this board. Always too plain, or too eccentric.

    My take, not my fave but not hideous. I wouldn’t turn one of these units down. And at least it’s original. So THERE.

  • Adds a nice spot of color.

  • The colors are nice for some variety. In contrast to the comment about lining up the colors, I’m actually glad the builder hasn’t done that. Keeping all the same colors on each floor would look too much like a parking garage to me.

    Although I have to say the geometry of the building is pretty boring.

  • 2 Big THumbs DOWN! It looks cheap, tacky and aged before it’s even completed.
    Color can easily be tastefully incorporated into building with a more traditional, classic (stodgy if you want) look that would be consistent and respectful of the neighborhood’s overall history and look timeless over the years. Just check out many of POP’s featured houses and doors for ideas on making traditional look colorful and nice.
    This is a total disaster and reminds me of a pack of socks from H&M in building form.

  • I like it, but in 10-20 years, it’s going to look awful. I remember so many buildings like this, or in powder blue tones, built in the ’60s and ’70s. By the time I was a kid in the ’80s, they were dated and hideous.

  • Another UGLY Reitag – UHOP venture…there’s no stopping that combo in Shaw…the church owns a boatload of land there unfortunately.

  • Hideous like a 1960s elementary school.

  • Looks like a project

  • It will look ridiculous in 10 years; it might become likeable kitsch like mid-mod in 50.

  • Terrible.

  • Architectural style of the building looked really promising but choice of colors make it so cheap and ugly. Horrible.

  • Anyone else notice that the actual building and rendering on the Reatig website don’t exactly match up? Looks like the building got shortchanged quite a few windows

  • I love it! finally some color.

  • it looks very cheap – and even flimsy – in person. sort of like a plastic toy. I agree that it has a dated euro facility/housing/prison look.

  • I drove by this the other day and it is absolutely terrible. it’s nice to see development in Shaw, but this lot looked better as a boarded up vacant building. At least there was potential then.

  • While it’s not my favorite, anything is better than the condemned row houses that were there before it. Now we just need to fill in the empty lot next to it!

Comments are closed.