78°Partly Cloudy
  • anon

    you need a photo of the view from the east side of North Capitol. The entire side of the pop up is a story higher than the house next to it and is covered with beige vinyl siding, with a long thin chimney sticking out of it, also clad in siding.

    • Nosy on Ess

      As a preface: Does anyone have a sense for what the additional budget impact would have been had they used brick on either side of this pop-up (I’m ok with the developer using vinyl on the rear)? Shame to put at least some effort into making the brickwork facing the street look nice and then stop considerably short by pairing it up with vinyl siding.

      Yep…I live VERY nearby this property and had a range of sentiments regarding this conversion. When they ripped the turret off I sort of felt that a major violation had occurred (and I began to believe that the solution recommended by Imgoph on this thread has real merit). Then I felt hopeful when I saw that they were at least attempting to mimic the decorative brickwork common to homes on my block/in our neighborhood. My hope was ultimately dashed when I saw that cheap vinyl siding. Sigh….

      • Larchie

        Quick google search reveals siding to be about $1.60 to $2.20 per square foot, and brick to be between $2.40 and $3.20 per square foot. So 1.5 to 2 times the cost of siding. Don’t be too critical of my numbers, just trying to get an order of magnitude here. Given the cost of transporting materials these days, and difficulty of installing it on a 3 story scaffold, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was _more_ than double the cost for this job.

        • The big thing they got right was to not extend the 2-story projection up another story. That’s just not right.

  • ET

    I wonder if they plan on painting it so the mismatched brick isn’t as obvious?

  • Anonymous

    Too early to tell, but at least they are using material that’s congruous to the rest of the house as opposed to flimsy wood and cheap siding.

  • Larchie

    It’s definitely on the right track. They are using brick, stone lintels and sills that are the same dimensions as the original, the fenestration is compatible (so far), they created shadow lines with the brick that matches the depth of reveal in the original, and they took some effort to create that nice cornice pattern that fits with other DC row house architecture. I’m okay with the brick not being completely matchy-matchy, but it wouldn’t hurt if it did match.

    Definite thumbs up. They are doing it right.

  • Hello Goodbye

    Sorry to hear from anon that it isn’t so nice from the side. Looks good from the front (presume it will be painted to match. Seems like they need a little more decoration on the forward protruding part of the house where the peaked roof was lopped off. It looks a bit truncated, as is.

  • This is why Bloomingdale needs to be designated historic, before more of this stuff happens.

    Bloomingdale is unique in that most of its housing still exists in its original form, unlike Shaw, for example, where there’s been much destruction and change.

    This is a shame. It’s cheap construction, and looks terrible.

  • Anon202

    I am with some of the previous commenters (Larchie said it best) – this appears to be the kind of addition that should be encouraged. Assuming they paint the new brick. (For once, in this case, I am in favor of painted brick.) All in all this seems to be a good example of what can be done, if one wants to encourage a living city, where people can alter their surrounding to suit their needs, without offending the spirit of pre-exisiting buildings and without wrapping a community into an historic district mummy.
    (One poster pointed out that the rear view is not as good, and although I reserve judgement until I’ve seen it, it’s an idea I can live with – using different and lesser materials in less visible areas is a time-honored tradition and does not have to be a bad thing.)


Subscribe to our mailing list