11 Comment

  • Blithe

    I like the contrast, and I REALLY like the house on the right. I’m wondering if the house on the left was viewed with derision when it was built — i.e. If it was the equivalent of a nicely done pop-up — that blocked light and changed the scale of the street-scape.

    • The one on the left used to look like the one on the right, then around 1900 the owner popped it up and built a new facade. So yes, a 100 year old pop-up. I found all the relevant permits once. Don’t make me go find them again. Please just take my word for it.

      • That would be permit #646, issued October 16, 1895, which was for a new facade and a pop-up. The house on the right dates from about 1873.

    • Blithe

      crin and Brian, y’all are awesome! As is the picture that FYI linked. Thanks much!

  • More proof that the only problem with popups is that some of them are poorly done.

  • justinbc

    OMG inconsistent rooflines AGHHHHHHH!!!!

  • Does anyone know what architectural style these are? I’m pretty sure that they are neither Beaux Arts nor Colonial.

  • New facades on older houses were common in the 1890s. Owners wanted to be stylish and avant-garde. 913 M Street NW owes its fairly distinctive look to that. I’d call it Beaux Arts, I guess. It certainly displays a strong move away from the dark colors and ornate decoration of earlier Victorian styles that were very much the norm in 1895. Carved stone, for instance, was common around doors and windows until 1904, so this is much more like what you’d see in a 1905ish house. 911 M is a very typical upscale, post-Civil War DC house, like you see just north of Logan Circle. It might be properly called Second Empire, but we’ll go ahead and call it Victorian until an ACTUAL architectural historian sets us straight. The only thing that I can be definitive about is that the paint on 911 is unfortunate.

  • House on the right is falling down around itself. Really really cool though.

Comments are closed.