14 Comment

  • I used to think this was awesome…developers actually saving history because they cared about the city and the community. Then I realized often times it’s a ploy to avoid raze permits and other regulations. Saving a fraction of the original facade allows them to build a new building without the hassles of DCRA claiming it’s new construction…it’s just a renovation!

    • west_egg

      …and when they’re done with the new build-out, they tear off the “old” facade and rebuild that, too. Voila! Entirely new building, 100% fewer raze permits.

    • Well that’s crappy. I’m not advocating anything unsafe or violent, but it does make me picture “That’s a nice facade you’ve got there; it would be a shame if anything happened to it…”

    • Yeah — I hope in these cases the facades will actually stay, and not “accidentally” collapse and have to be replaced by new construction.

  • clevelanddave

    Whew that house on 10th St took a long time to develop. Must be an interesting story there. I was under the impression that there was a historically significant house in the way back part of the lot, not the façade that seems to be the part they saved. What is going up here? Did they get the empty lot next door?

    • I spent so much time on the phone with DCRA so that it’s peeling siding (after Sandy) and crumbling bricks didn’t kill a nearby neighbor. We walk by everyday now imaging the “as-is” sales listing: open layout, tons of natural light…

  • Another “alteration and repair.”

  • This makes me think about the very large facade at the southwest side of the Taft bridge on Connecticut going from Kalorama area towards Woodley Park. Does anyone knows what is going on there?

  • That 10th street blight has taken forever to even see movement. It wasn’t until a partial collapse that they started doing something. The facade is not worth saving, if they even intend to keep it. I’m hoping the property will be used well since it is on an otherwise very nice block.

  • And how big of a pop-up will this one be?

  • I’m usually all for saving facades, but the one on 10th street is actually pretty ugly and doesn’t look original. As EnShaw said, the state of the building was borderline dangerous for a long time.

    • clevelanddave

      I think the family was trying to keep it and didn’t want to pay taxes on it and couldn’t develop it because of some historic component to the house that they didn’t want to pay to restore. Apparently whatever the historic part of the house that was there collapsed or deteriorated and now you’ve got this stupid compromise that makes no sense. Based on the history of the place unless they’ve partnered with someone who knows what they’re doing this may very well turn into a hot mess.

Comments are closed.