96°Mostly Cloudy
  • JS

    It’s not a completely square box (hopefully that mansard is covered with legit shingles) so it gets a thumbs up in my book. To see how these redevelopments can go wrong, just look further up the 3500 block of 11th NW or some of the new stuff going up on the 3500 block of 14th St.

  • Happy to see it isn’t just another box and hoping it looks good and not like the popup under construction on the east side of 10th near Spring. And happy to see movement at last. Between the construction on this and other projects on 10th and work by DC Water, parking on 10th St has been reduced by at least half. Hopefully these buildings that receive parking variances will attract some buyers who don’t have cars. Wishful thinking.

  • iwdc

    How many units is that going to be?

  • terrydactyll

    Sad to see that beautiful Victorian lost, a shame they couldn’t or didn’t incorporate.

    • NorthByNE

      I think the prior renovation that added that flat fronted addition destroyed the victorian charm. At least this appears to be a cohesive design that works with the rest of the neighborhood.

      • textdoc

        +1 to “I think the prior renovation that added that flat fronted addition destroyed the victorian charm.”
        .
        Not feeling very optimistic about the new design so far — the four-in-a-row windows on either side of the corner don’t look right. The mansard roof really ought to cover the building’s whole footprint, not just part of it. And having a solid wall surrounding the balcony off the mansard roof doesn’t look right either — some kind of metal railing would have been better.

    • wdc

      There was nothing much beautiful about it by the time the developers got to work. It had been allowed to decay terribly.
      I wonder if this is planned? Let an old classic become such a dangerous eyesore that the neighborhood welcomes a flipper, just to get rid of the blight?

      • JS

        Wasn’t it a church before this? These little storefront churches have plenty of membership problems (i.e. money problems) – I doubt the neglect was intentional. The church probably needed the cash & sold the building to acquire it.

        • textdoc

          I think the neglect by the developer who bought it was intentional, though.

          • textdoc
          • JS

            And as I said before, you barely have to leave any original structure remaining under the permits used here – there’s no neglect in what happened. It’s just a development project that took a while.

          • textdoc

            This thread had a bunch of in-progress photos showing how the developer slowly let the facade deteriorate:
            .
            https://www.popville.com/2016/01/10th-and-monroe-st-nw-today/

          • textdoc

            It’s a lame loophole that developers can get away with essentially razing a structure under an “interior demolition” permit.

          • JS

            As an aside – there’s at least one other person that posts under JS here. I need a new handle.

          • Q

            I’ve been wondering about this. They kept the ugliest part of the front propped up through the entire, excruciatingly long demolition, just to tear it down once they finally started actual work. What’s the point of that? With the caveat that I know essentially nothing about these things, I assumed that they left it up to take advantage of some “historic building” loophole. But then wouldn’t they have to keep it up?

          • textdoc

            Q — I don’t think it has anything to do with a “historic building” designation — this area isn’t designated as a historic district, and as far as I know, the building itself hadn’t been designated with a historic status.
            .
            I think the goal was basically to do a raze under the guise of “interior demolition” — apparently the permit for the latter is cheaper.

          • saf

            Also, permitting it that way allows them to keep the original lot coverage.

    • stacksp

      Right. I am sad to see it go as well.

    • i like spires

      At least they could keep the spire.

  • PV Res

    What a damn waste! The original building was such a one if a kind.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list