43 Comment

  • I think they did a great job considering how unique the existing intersection is!

  • This is two different projects, right? We are judging the (imo) better looking building on the left? If so, I really like it. The darker red building on the right, on the other hand, seems somehow misproportioned (what’s up with those first floor windows?); almost as if it’s better suited for a suburban “town center”.

  • I like the corner unit, and the original set of units facing T Street are reasonably good. The later units facing Vermont Ave. are mediocre. The street elevations are rather flat and characterless, and there is insufficient detailing. The building built a year or two before on the northwest corner of 11th & T is a good deal superior. On the other hand, the Vermont & T development is not ugly, and certainly is an improvement over the vacant lot that was there before.

    • Agree with this assessment. It’s definitely an improvement from the empty lot, but this is pretty much as vanilla as it gets. I’d be interested in hearing about the quality of the interior finishing and craftsmanship of the buildings.

      • I haven’t seen these other than the pics here, but these look far less vanilla to me than most of the new construction around town. The cornice is all wrong on the units on the right, but at street level most people would walk past these not realizing it’s new construction.

      • I live nearby and went to an open house for the T street facing units which the agent said were built and sold first to help fund the rest of the project. The developer is from McLean and you get a lot of the vibe of a big fancy house in McLean or Great Falls. The finishings were quite nice- extremely ornate crown molding, super high ceilings, etc. The units were approx 2400 sq feet if I recall. The lower unit had good space use but I remember thinking that the upper unit had an odd layout. It spanned several floors and had a roofdeck on top of that so it seemed like you were on the stairway to heaven- but still very nice on the finishes. I think the sticking point for the project was that their initial asking price was in the $1.1m price if I am not mistaken. That price point has your units competing against row homes. No idea what they ended up selling for but I saw multiple price reductions on their signs. If I had to guess they realized that there wasn’t as much of a market for luxury condos and swapped their design for the units on Vermont to hit a lower pricing goal.

      • Much better than the boxy glass covered things that are popular right now. these fit the neighborhood and they won’t look instantly recognizable as something from a particular period that didn’t age well.

  • Are they single family homes?

    It’s weird seeing those seats out front. It would be awkward coming out the front door and having to say “hi” to random people sitting in them each day… They should have created independent front porches at each of the entrances.

  • left – nice
    right – boring and mediocre. did they just cheap out at the end?

  • i like this style of design, but a little color or detailing would go a long way!

  • Honestly, not a fan of how this development turned out.

    As others have pointed out the proportions seem off and there is a lack of detailing. The “transom” windows look really awkward and the expanse of brick above the top row of windows is monotonous. Maybe it could have been broken up with varying gable fronts?

    I wonder if instead of trying to (poorly) mimic the surrounding townhouses the designer should have gone modern.

    The comment about these looking like a suburban town center/centre was spot on.

  • Not the most inspiring architecture, but it’s functional, not too trendy. I would have preferred if the entire development would have been in the lighter brick though. The buildings are pretty similar, but the one on the corner looks so much more interesting because of the lighter, more varied color.

  • Anything with a turret will always have my vote.

  • Based on their sales price per sqft, they were constructed low-quality. I would have expected nearly $600 /sqft for a new development in this neighborhood, but they weren’t even close. I’m fairly sure they didn’t show well (not that I saw the open houses).

  • For apartment/condos that sold for prices ranging between $840k to $1.079-million, I would have hoped that this would have purchased a little better exterior architecture. HOWEVER: BETTER THAN A VACANT LOT.

  • I want to say better than a vacant lot, but it looks a little…section 8.

    • 1. That’s really rude.
      2. What about it looks like a project? Have you ever seen a low income housing project?

      • It’s pretty clear that MRD doesn’t know exactly what Section 8 is, other than ignorant shorthand for public housing or low income housing tax credit properties, neither of which are actually “Section 8” (as in Section 8 of the US Housing Act of 1937).
        I will say, however, that this building looks a lot like an architect reached into a drawer and pulled out the firm’s stock urban redevelopment design. It looks like nearly every inner-city HOPE VI project circa 1998.

      • The building on the right looks cheap and uninspired, much like most/all Section 8 housing.

      • justinbc

        Not all Section 8 candidates live in housing projects.

    • This looks section 8? You must not be from around here.

  • I like these a lot more than most of the other people here. I like the bump-outs, I like that the front is brick instead of the usual glass and metal look, I think it will age well (assuming the construction quality is up to par), and I really like the turret. I find it a bit weird that the colors and styles change a bit. I like that it looks like it kinda fits the area style. I haven’t seen the inside.

  • Ugggly – talk about a dull looking condo. This is what can happen when developers try too hard to re-create a traditional building with modern amenities while cutting down on cost. It looks super fake – like something more suited to Lorton or Alexandria’s Cameron Station.

  • Gorgeous!

  • I like it – this blends nicely with the historic construction of the city – not like the boring glass boxes popping up now.

    • there are almost no glass box residential developments of this scale anywhere in the city. what are you talking about?

      • There are a bunch of glass boxes going up or somewhat recently finished in the Mt. Vernon Triangle area. NoMa too. I’d agree that most new construction in DC tends to be of the “glass box” variety. Maybe less so in Logan Circle, but there are a few glass boxes on 14th St. too.

  • Ugly. These new buildings that try to look like old rowhouses never really work — the old ones have so much detail and character that the new ones inevitably look cheap and chintzy by comparison. I’d much rather see something that is unabashedly modern that these boring brick faux-DC things. Build them in Germantown or somewhere.

  • better than an empty lot, but really uninspired. Where are all the architects?

  • Relative to most of the new housing/pop ups in DC, these don’t look awful but there are couple major design flaws.

    1.) the proportions seem off on the top floor for the building on Vermont.
    2.) the buildings are dreadfully boring and there is no distinction between the difference houses. Why not just paint them different colors or add some sort of marker to differentate between the buildings? Did the architects not take a look at the rest of the existing townhouse stock in the city?
    3.) there looks to be a major design flaw on the T Street building with odd windows and large windowless areas.
    4.) of course the biggest design flaw of all, which is consistent with most new construction in DC, is that these aren’t brick buildings. They are wood/plywood houses with a brick veneer. The small, old house to the right will be standing longer and it probably has a 90 year head start. As someone who built wood houses, I would never buy one (particularly a new one, which are now largely built of plywood). Why is that building material is not considered as part of the value of a house? If it were, the small, old house to the right would be triple or quadruple the value of the condos in the new building.

  • Generic.

    Much better than it could have been, and clearly better than the vacant lot (!). But obviously it was designed to specifications based on sales trends, and not with much imagination or respect for particularity of that corner. I think ten years from now it will look dated, much as the generic McMansions do now. In fact it already looks a bit dated, to me at least.

  • I’m surprised at how many people are actually posting positive comments about this development. I think they tried to play it safe in the design and the result is an ugly, uninspired set of buildings that adds nothing to the neighborhood. Just look at the small windows and the massive amounts of brick. I love brick, but having 10 feet of brick between the top of the last window and the roof is really ugly.
    This was an empty lot so they could have done anything, but instead they stuck to boring and failed at even making something that fit into the neighborhood (which I assume was their goal).

Comments are closed.