Jump to content

Third Church of Christ, Scientist (1971-2014), I.M. Pei's Controversial Brutalist Work on 16th and I Street NW


DonRocks

Recommended Posts

I used to joke around with brian about the Third Church of Christ, Scientist:

church.jpg

and Brutalist architecture in general, saying how ugly it all was. He had sometimes written about this church, and I was giving him what was intended to be a good-natured ribbing. And yes, I *do* think it's ugly - in fact, it's an absolute eyesore; on the other hand, Brian is an expert at architecture, and I am nothing but a curious layman whose knowledge is barely above zero. When we first began talking about it, I remember that I was surprised to find out it was designed by I.M. Pei (who I suspect is taken seriously by real architects, but also becomes annoying since he's one of about five names (along with Frank Lloyd Wright) that people like me mention, because we don't know enough to mention any others).

And then, I remember driving by it one day about a year ago, and seeing this:

ex-church.jpg

and, out of the blue, I became extremely sad - I wasn't even sure why. I've since looked into the building, and realize that it was considered by many respected architects to be - not an eyesore, but an important work. Yet, the businessmen and the bureaucrats apparently didn't listen to the architects and historians, and sacrificed this building forever in order to become another generic, glass-windowed office building.

Shifting to something I have more expertise in (classical music), whether or not a piece is "pretty" or "beautiful" is of little importance to me in terms of assessing its value. I can't even begin to list the masterpieces which, to an untrained ear, might sound "ugly," "like noise," or "just plain boring," and yet, these pieces are not only appreciated, but positively cherished by me and most people with a music education.

Example (*):

I don't know the back story behind the church's demolition, but the thought of brain-dead government officials ignoring experts in order to pander to the masses makes me want to evolve towards Fascism.

If this building was a masterpiece, even if I can't see it, then damn it, it's a masterpiece, and it's up to me to bring myself up to speed so that I can recognize it as such.

What other works of importance are going to be sacrificed for the almighty dollar, and because the public wants something "inoffensive to the eye?"

I may not be sophisticated enough to know that this was an important building, but I'm wise enough to recognize that experts, who know a whole lot more than I do, think that it was. If I were in a position of power, I would listen to what they had to say, public opinion be damned.

(*) [Emphasis mine] "Early in 1943, I received the score of the Seventh Sonata, which I found fascinating and which I learned in just four days (**).... The work was a huge success. The audience clearly grasped the spirit of the work, which reflected their innermost feelings and concerns. (This was also felt to be the case with Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony, which dates from more or less the same period.)... With this work we are brutally plunged into the anxiously threatening atmosphere of a world that has lost its balance. Chaos and uncertainty reign. We see murderous forces ahead. But this does not mean that what we lived by before thereby ceases to exist. We continue to feel and love. Now the full range of human emotions bursts forth. Together with our fellow men and women, we raise a voice in protest and share the common grief. We sweep everything before us, borne along by the will for victory. In the tremendous struggle that this involves, we find the strength to affirm the irrepressible life-force." -- Sviatislov Richter

(**) :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand your sentiments about it, Don, but I think you're missing an essential part of the equation: the congregation to whom this building belonged. While I was never inside it or know the specific discussions, my understanding is that the congregation could no longer manage its upkeep and that it was a decidedly problematic worship space that was essentially impossible to reconfigure to something more fitting to their--or anyone's--needs or to be converted into some other use than a church because of its particular infrastructure. The historians and architects battled with the congregation for many years about its significance; they were essentially being held hostage in their own building because they could not afford to move without shedding the property. So, yes, it's a sad situation, but there were few viable alternatives for the congregation. Ultimately, it's their property to dispose of, despite any historic or architectural significance, and neither the state nor any other group should be able to interfere in that, unless they want to buy it from the congregation and assume responsibility for its preservation--which was pretty much pointless, if it couldn't serve any other purpose, including its original one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, it's their property to dispose of, despite any historic or architectural significance, and neither the state nor any other group should be able to interfere in that, unless they want to buy it from the congregation and assume responsibility for its preservation--which was pretty much pointless, if it couldn't serve any other purpose, including its original one.

Well, this is why it's a forum and not a lecture. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with practically everything Marc Fisher wrote about this controversy in the Post back in 2007. When I first heard that efforts were underway to give this hideous failure protected historic landmark status, I thought it was a joke. I.M. Pei and his company have created some beautiful buildings, although two of the most beautiful, the Hancock tower in Boston and the National Gallery East Building here, suffered from major design and engineering flaws that had to be corrected at tremendous expense (the latter to you and me). But they were also responsible for the whole sorry, misbegotten L'Enfant Plaza, and in Boston, on a much larger scale than the Third Church here, the First Church of Christian Science Plaza and associated buildings, which have been a blight on the city-scape there for four decades.

I'm glad that the preservation extremists were not able to save the edifice at 16th and I. Not all Brutalist design is horrible, but much of it is, and I will not shed a tear if they tear down Boston City Hall and the Hoover FBI building. I rather like the Washington Metro subway stations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand your sentiments about it, Don, but I think you're missing an essential part of the equation: the congregation to whom this building belonged. While I was never inside it or know the specific discussions, my understanding is that the congregation could no longer manage its upkeep and that it was a decidedly problematic worship space that was essentially impossible to reconfigure to something more fitting to their--or anyone's--needs or to be converted into some other use than a church because of its particular infrastructure. The historians and architects battled with the congregation for many years about its significance; they were essentially being held hostage in their own building because they could not afford to move without shedding the property. So, yes, it's a sad situation, but there were few viable alternatives for the congregation. Ultimately, it's their property to dispose of, despite any historic or architectural significance, and neither the state nor any other group should be able to interfere in that, unless they want to buy it from the congregation and assume responsibility for its preservation--which was pretty much pointless, if it couldn't serve any other purpose, including its original one.

Your understanding is that the congregation couldn't manage the upkeep and it was impossible to reconfigure because that was the argument the church's PR and legal team made so that they could get a permit to demolish the building and make a huge profit by selling the land for a "trophy class" office building. For all the issues with changing light bulbs and air conditioning in the space it's remarkable they didn't change to LED fixtures or upgrade a decades-old HVAC system. Of course, if they'd done that they wouldn't have been able to argue that the building was a maintenance burden...

It wasn't an architectural masterpiece, but it was pretty good. I don't know that there would have been a viable way to save the building, but it's a shame the press was complicit in the story of this poor congregation being forced to tear down their unworkable monstrosity of a building instead of the other side: the congregation commissioned a world famous architect to design a church for them, approved the plans, and decades later when DC office land was in much more demand they decided to demolish and sell so that they could make an enormous profit from a developer because the site was far more valuable as a expensive DC office building full of lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with practically everything Marc Fisher wrote about this controversy in the Post back in 2007. 

As Marc Fisher wrote in that column, "If the church were replaced by a standard K Street box, that would indeed be a loss."

But that was always the only possible outcome. The church only sold because the economics of the standard K Street box made the land very valuable. It was remarkably naive for anyone to argue the church should be torn down with the hope that "maybe they'll put up something better!" and then act disappointed with the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Marc Fisher wrote in that column, "If the church were replaced by a standard K Street box, that would indeed be a loss."

But that was always the only possible outcome. The church only sold because the economics of the standard K Street box made the land very valuable. It was remarkably naive for anyone to argue the church should be torn down with the hope that "maybe they'll put up something better!" and then act disappointed with the outcome.

I was hoping you'd chime in, Brian, and sure enough, your take on this situation is extremely fresh.

But your take is also that of an architect (which is ironically what my first post was about), and because you have an architect's take, you're assuming it's unanimous that everyone thinks the new building is nothing more than a "K Street box."

However, I'd bet that most people *don't* think this is a standard K Street box - when I think of the term "K Street box," I think of something in this shape, yes, but made reflecting the 1970s or 1980s in appearance, and this building looks very much up-to-date in terms of aesthetics: It's Miley Cyrus instead of Madonna.

K Street boxes have more frame; less glass.

K Street boxes are darker, with less light.

K Street boxes are forbidding; not welcoming.

K Street boxes are perceived as using concrete. (*)

I predict - as a layman speaking - that this building will be extremely appealing to the general public, and not a disappointment at all. I'm saying this without having Googled anything about it - I suspect when I *do* Google it, I'll see architects and historians saying, "See?" and people like Marc Fischer also saying, "See?"

Thanks for your comments (actually, thanks to everyone for their comments) - they've brought real depth to the topic.

(*) Also ironically, when I think of "K Street boxes," I also think of buildings being recessed from the road; whereas what I have termed "Selfish Architecture" uses every inch that code allows it to, and most likely applies for modifications which I suspect are typically granted. Even in suburbs (witness places like East Falls Church and Merrifield), buildings are currently being built right up to the point where they get in peoples' faces. There would be no room to plant a tree on the sidewalk, for example. That is Selfish Architecture; has anyone noticed the *sky* above the Third Church of Christ, Scientist? And the grass? And the airiness? You could even see the building behind it; now, nobody is going to have any idea what that building looks like unless they look at old pictures, which contain that beautiful plot of grass and even a flower garden. To those who say "That land's too valuable to have grass and a flower garden": My response is: "No, it's too valuable *not* to."

P.S. Now you now how I feel when I see a smiling picture of Mike Isabella. It's the exact same thing, and if anyone thinks this is a slam on him, they're misreading me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your understanding is that the congregation couldn't manage the upkeep and it was impossible to reconfigure because that was the argument the church's PR and legal team made so that they could get a permit to demolish the building and make a huge profit by selling the land for a "trophy class" office building. For all the issues with changing light bulbs and air conditioning in the space it's remarkable they didn't change to LED fixtures or upgrade a decades-old HVAC system. Of course, if they'd done that they wouldn't have been able to argue that the building was a maintenance burden...

It wasn't an architectural masterpiece, but it was pretty good. I don't know that there would have been a viable way to save the building, but it's a shame the press was complicit in the story of this poor congregation being forced to tear down their unworkable monstrosity of a building instead of the other side: the congregation commissioned a world famous architect to design a church for them, approved the plans, and decades later when DC office land was in much more demand they decided to demolish and sell so that they could make an enormous profit from a developer because the site was far more valuable as a expensive DC office building full of lawyers.

OK, so maybe I'm naive. I'm writing as one with a background in congregational and worship studies, who once served on a building committee for the construction of a seminary chapel. Building needs do change as congregations change--including dwindling numbers--and can become a burden, or inappropriate for the current state of a congregation. So, congregations ask questions about the welcoming nature of the space, the configuration of seating relative to the "message" that they intend to convey, and other specialized questions relative to buildings dedicated to worship (not to mention accessibility issues). It's not just a matter of maintenance or updating systems. It's entirely credible that the expressed needs of congregation that Pei addressed in his design no longer held, or that addressing them would create an equal outcry from preservationists for changing vital aspects of that original design, in order, say, to let in more natural light or other such visual alterations. I don't doubt your assertion that they saw a chance to cash in on rising land values, and made what could be regarded as a cynical choice. But I also know that these sorts of unique or iconic church buildings can and do wind up posing special problems over time to the congregations that decided to build them, usually during more optimistic or affluent times than what they may be currently facing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, you guys are killing it...point/counterpoint, point/counterpoint.  Love it.

You know what? It isn't the shape, or the design, of the church that people hated; it's the material - that ugly, dirty, car-exhaust-magnet: concrete. What would it have taken to put marble (or granite, or whatever light-colored stone you wish) panels on it? Hell, make it pink sandstone to celebrate gay rights. Then, it would have taken on a whole new aesthetic, and might have even become a cherished little quirk, instead of an eyesore (which, granted, it was). Seriously, look at that picture, and imagine it with a white-marble facade - maybe all it needed was a little make-up.

That set of bells is gone forever. So are the sky and the trees and the flowers. OctaGone.

I admit that this only addresses the aesthetics, and not the practicalities, but the aesthetics is what the entire debate was about; otherwise, it would have been a typical in-fight that probably happens on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? It isn't the shape, or the design, of the church that people hated; it's the material - that ugly, dirty, car-exhaust-magnet: concrete. What would it have taken to put marble (or granite, or whatever light-colored stone you wish) panels on it?  Hell, make it pink sandstone to celebrate gay rights. Then, it would have taken on a whole new aesthetic, and might have even become a cherished little quirk, instead of an eyesore (which, granted, it was). Seriously, look at that picture, and imagine it with a white-marble facade - maybe all it needed was a little make-up.

That set of bells is gone forever. So are the sky and the trees and the flowers. OctaGone.

I admit that this only addresses the aesthetics, and not the practicalities, but the aesthetics is what the entire debate was about; otherwise, it would have been a typical in-fight that probably happens on a daily basis.

But then it wouldn't have been brutalist:

Brutalist architecture is a movement in architecture that flourished from the 1950s to the mid-1970s, descending from the modernist architectural movement of the early 20th century. The term does not derive from the word "brutal," but originates from the French béton brut, or "raw concrete," a term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then it wouldn't have been brutalist:

Brutalist architecture is a movement in architecture that flourished from the 1950s to the mid-1970s, descending from the modernist architectural movement of the early 20th century. The term does not derive from the word "brutal," but originates from the French béton brut, or "raw concrete," a term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material.

I once saw a gay parody of Shakespeare (or something like that - it was a long time ago), and when the guy was stabbed, he screamed, in an exaggerated voice, "Et tu, you brute!"

It would have been raw concrete at the core - an entire neo-Brutalist movement could have been formed.

Nevertheless, your point is a good one, and one which I suspect architects defend, and one which I have trouble with. That shit is Yog-LEE! Still, people modify old buildings all the time for current use - think of industrial chic (which is shorthand for "We're too cheap to pay for linens, curtains, and sound dampening."). I wonder if the core reason behind Brutalism wasn't "raw concrete," but instead, "raw economics" - can there be a cheaper way to build something? Was Brutalism the architectural response to the financial constraints of the day? If so, then it's more engineering (i.e., working with constraints) than art - why not preserve the "good" in Pei's design, and keep the baby while throwing out the bathwater?

Twelve-tone music as a pure art form has largely run its course, and very few people write it anymore - it's commonly looked at as "an interesting academic experiment." It was influential, however, and it is absolutely incorporated, to varying degrees, into modern music - take, as an older example, the final movement in the Samuel Barber Piano Sonata (which is both a twelve-tone fugue and a masterwork). Incidentally, Yevgeny Kissin (in the video) was at Strathmore this past Wednesday evening.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for the congregation.  There was a time I worked on selling ground for development in the city and suburbs.  Long ago.  Just looking at the site they sold that ground for $10's of millions of dollars.  Its a small congregation.  They now have the money to build or purchase an appropriate building and investment income for maintaining their congregation.  Much better to do that than worry about replacing light bulbs and other costs that have nothing to do with the church.

When a shrinking congregation is dealing with maintaining a building, supporting their leader(s), and paying their costs it is an agonizing process.   That congregation can move forward, at least financially.

Myriads of congregations have moved from downtown sites and urban sites for decades.  Its occurred in DC and in cities across the land.

As to the old property I thought it weird and ugly, and amazingly misplaced for its location.

In terms of the office building replacing it, apparently it is impossible to build anything but a boxy structure in DC.  More than anything that is probably a function of tremendously high costs of land per amount of space you can build.  When I was involved in those transactions DC's downtown costs of land per foot of development were the highest in the nation.   I'm sure they are significantly higher and still among the highest in the nation if not still the highest per foot of development.  Its because of height limitations and extraordinary demand.

As to K Street buildings and boxes:   Yes the newer buildings are "lighter looking, glassier, etc.   They are still boxes, and they are filled with lawyers and lobbyists.

At least the restaurants those tenants can visit are more interesting, varied, and better than those in the past.   ;)  ....and far more expensive to boot....of course the restaurants are paying some extraordinary rents.......(and that is partially because of the incredible costs of the land)!!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Marc Fisher wrote in that column, "If the church were replaced by a standard K Street box, that would indeed be a loss."

But that was always the only possible outcome. The church only sold because the economics of the standard K Street box made the land very valuable. It was remarkably naive for anyone to argue the church should be torn down with the hope that "maybe they'll put up something better!" and then act disappointed with the outcome.

Actually, I don't agree with that one point in Marc Fisher's article. You are obviously correct that something like a K Street box was likely the only replacement for the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, and I think that's an improvement over the church. The church was fuck-you hideous. It shouted "fuck you!" at everyone who ever walked by it. It was only less offensive than Boston City Hall because it was smaller. I think I've never hated any structure on earth as much as I hated that one, and seeing it destroyed is a source of pleasure to me. If it had a grave, I would dance on it.

As to Don's remarks above about the sky: Yes, Washington has a special relationship with the sky, such as few other cities have. But it's not a positive thing everywhere. The sky that surrounds and caresses the Washington Monument: Yes! The sky above Freedom Plaza: No!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I'm curious about, is whether the building belonged to the congregation, or to the denomination. I don't know the Christian Science polity well enough to understand that. It does make a difference as to how a property is disposed of.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your take is also that of an architect (which is ironically what my first post was about), and because you have an architect's take, you're assuming it's unanimous that everyone thinks the new building is nothing more than a "K Street box."

However, I'd bet that most people *don't* think this is a standard K Street box - when I think of the term "K Street box," I think of something in this shape, yes, but made reflecting the 1970s or 1980s in appearance, and this building looks very much up-to-date in terms of aesthetics: It's Miley Cyrus instead of Madonna.

K Street boxes have more frame; less glass.

K Street boxes are darker, with less light.

K Street boxes are forbidding; not welcoming.

K Street boxes are perceived as using concrete. (*)

I think of a K Street box as an office building designed to maximize building envelope, allowable square footage, and built right to the property line in a way that optimizes perimeter and column layout in order to accommodate the maximum number of private lawyer offices on the perimeter of the building. Glass, stone, concrete, brick - they're all effectively the same building. K Street is architecturally remarkable not for any one building, but for developing an architecture that's truly DC in nature - working within height and building limits to achieve pretty much the same end result no matter how a building is designed. 60 years ago they were mostly stone. 30 years ago mostly concrete. Now mostly glass. Same buildings.

kstreet_012413gn2.jpg

(*) Also ironically, when I think of "K Street boxes," I also think of buildings being recessed from the road; whereas what I have termed "Selfish Architecture" uses every inch that code allows it to, and most likely applies for modifications which I suspect are typically granted. Even in suburbs (witness places like East Falls Church and Merrifield), buildings are currently being built right up to the point where they get in peoples' faces. There would be no room to plant a tree on the sidewalk, for example.

Especially downtown, DC designed and owns a lot more sidewalk space than places like East Falls Church and Merrifield have. If anything, buildings in downtown DC use every square inch allowable by zoning to a far greater extent than those in the suburbs, because every square inch of land is far more valuable. Broad sidewalks and trees in DC aren't the product of generous developers - they're the product of L'Enfant's planning and the city's safeguarding of that legacy. Of course, the city screwed up decades ago by allowing so many of those new office buildings to eliminate service alleys which has a huge impact today, but oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dtn11.jpg

I have been swayed by many of the arguments here and will begin lobbying for the sale and demolition of St John's. Just a block away from the former Third Church of Christ, Scientist, it's a bizarre and outdated building on a corner lot much better suited to higher density development. It's painted a butt-ugly yellow, and though designed by a famous architect, it's clearly not one of Latrobe's better works. The pale colors inside can't mask the lack of natural light, so much so that in 1919 the church hired McKim, Mead, and White to remodel the building and enlarge the windows. It helped but it's still a gloomy interior. Surely a new office building with some space for a church tucked into the corner would better meet the modern needs of the congregation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dtn11.jpg

I have been swayed by many of the arguments here and will begin lobbying for the sale and demolition of St John's. Just a block away from the former Third Church of Christ, Scientist, it's a bizarre and outdated building on a corner lot much better suited to higher density development. It's painted a butt-ugly yellow, and though designed by a famous architect, it's clearly not one of Latrobe's better works. The pale colors inside can't mask the lack of natural light, so much so that in 1919 the church hired McKim, Mead, and White to remodel the building and enlarge the windows. It helped but it's still a gloomy interior. Surely a new office building with some space for a church tucked into the corner would better meet the modern needs of the congregation.

I'm sure you're not actually dense enough to mistake a beautiful church for an ugly one; I wonder why you're pretending that you are. You can't possibly be honestly mistaking "it was hideous" for "it was outdated", can you? St. John's is one of the prettiest churches in Washington. I think you'll search for a long, long time to find anyone who would say that about the Third Church of Christ, Scientist. Remember, it looked like this:

58610785.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you're not actually dense enough to mistake a beautiful church for an ugly one; I wonder why you're pretending that you are. You can't possibly be honestly mistaking "it was hideous" for "it was outdated", can you? St. John's is one of the prettiest churches in Washington. I think you'll search for a long, long time to find anyone who would say that about the Third Church of Christ, Scientist. 

I'm sure you're not actually dense enough to mistake subjectivity for objectivity. I think the Third Church of Christ, Scientist was one of the most beautiful churches in DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you're not actually dense enough to mistake subjectivity for objectivity. I think the Third Church of Christ, Scientist was one of the most beautiful churches in DC.

Then I'm glad I don't live in your world.

[There is no need to turn the best thread we've had in recent memory into something less than that - this devolution is a perfect example of why no good forum can remain unmoderated.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a picture of the interior; it appears that on the left side of the sanctuary, there is some natural light coming in, but the ceiling is a large grid of lights. As Brian noted above, while they were surely hard and expensive to change, there were ways around that. I don't think it's awful, but it's more like an auditorium than a worship space. What would be the altar/pulpit area is recessed and low (the exact opposite of most Christian churches), and the space appears to be utterly inflexible in terms of seating. I would assume there was elevator service to the balcony areas, but it's pretty clear that there wasn't a lot they could do to make it a more comfortable or welcoming space or rearrange/remodel to accommodate changing needs.

post-177-0-58625200-1429999040_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if I lowered the tone of the thread. My loathing for the building under consideration is such that I find myself becoming intemperate when discussing it. Please excuse me.

I was never inside the church, and I thank Tujague for posting a picture of it. Being in the interior shown in the photograph would obviously be a lot different from looking at the photograph, but just based on this I have to say that it's better than the exterior was. I wouldn't assume that there was elevator service to the balconies in a building of this vintage, though.

Earlier, Tujague said this:

Ultimately, it's their property to dispose of, despite any historic or architectural significance, and neither the state nor any other group should be able to interfere in that, unless they want to buy it from the congregation and assume responsibility for its preservation--which was pretty much pointless, if it couldn't serve any other purpose, including its original one.

While I am not generally in sympathy with absolutist claims of property rights (not that Tujague was making such a claim, but the argument sort of gestures in that direction), I agree with this whole-heartedly, and consider it to have won the thread. Whether an economic motive played a part in the congregation's calculus (which it obviously must have done), what was the alternative? Forcing them to continue occupying and maintaining a church they no longer wanted? Absent some entity willing to step in and buy the property and maintain it as a shrine to the architecture of its era (and no entity prepared to do that exists in the actual universe), what outcome would have been both workable on its own terms and acceptable to the owners of the property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if I lowered the tone of the thread. My loathing for the building under consideration is such that I find myself becoming intemperate when discussing it. Please excuse me.

Instead of chastising brian for saying "it's beautiful," why don't you try to find out why he thinks it's beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm completely of the opinion that the church had every right to sell the building, that it was mislocated, very weird, and to be more blunt, simply ugly.

Its an interesting tale and an interesting thread above.  I did a bit more research.  The church( I assume the congregation) wanted to move from the property by at least 1990.  Preservationists prevented a sale and demolition at that time.  1990 or 91.  That is about 20 years from when the church was finished;  a remarkably short time for a congregation to grow disenchanted with a property.  That is about 1 generation of kids.  One would think that some of those, or possibly all, who had opted for the design and building were still with the congregation.

It is not uncommon to choose a design based on drawings but once something is built, people grow disenchanted with the final product.  It happens all the time.  Read the thread on kitchen design.  We all do that.

It would be one thing for a preservationist group to prevent the sale of a building deemed "historic", but they should purchase the property.  Who is to prevent the church from benefitting in the incredible value appreciation of that property between 1971 and later decades.  Why should the church or any owner be treated differently from every other property owner.

During the time I worked in the commercial real estate industry (2 decades) I must have walked by that property hundreds of times.  Weird, completely misplaced, mysterious, imposing looking, and simply ugly.  From what I read it didn't work well;  from the light bulb element to just looking at the inside;  it doesn't seem to inspire spirituality.

Not having any knowledge on the Church of Scientology I researched the group.  Interesting history.  A few brief notes:

  • A relatively young group, founded in the latter 1800's
  • At one point it was the fastest growing religious group in the nation
  • At other points the central church made a lot of money and built some edifaces
  • At its earliest days Mark Twain was one of its critics and a critic of its founder
  • In constructing various buildings the Church had employed I M Pei's architectural group for other buildings before the construction of the church in question.

I assume the central church recommended I M Pei's group as architects for this group and the architects unveiled this plan and design on the congregation.

I repeat within 2 decades the congregation were unhappy enough with the property that they were preparing to dispose of it.  I'd suggest it rapidly showed itself as having not worked for its intended purpose.

While I disagree with Brian i applaud his description of a "K Street Box".  Articulate, precise, and an historical review of the materials used in construction.

I think of a K Street box as an office building designed to maximize building envelope, allowable square footage, and built right to the property line in a way that optimizes perimeter and column layout in order to accommodate the maximum number of private lawyer offices on the perimeter of the building. Glass, ngstone, concrete, brick - they're all effectively the same building. K Street is architecturally remarkable not for any one building, but for developing an architecture that's truly DC in nature - working within height and building limits to achieve pretty much the same end result no matter how a building is designed. 60 years ago they were mostly stone. 30 years ago mostly concrete. Now mostly glass. Same building.

I'd add that at least starting around the end of the 70's or early 1980's DC's cost of land per development foot was the highest in the nation.  An extraordinary cost that levied a significant amount of costs on any building and forced up rents to cover those costs.   Developers were forced into building structures that could maximize every inch of rentable square footage;  hence boxes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for doing that research and providing that information, DaveO. One small correction to your work: it's not the Church of Scientology (that's Tom Cruise/John Travolta, et al.), but the Church of Christ, Scientist, founded by Mary Baker Eddy. They're essentially a Christian sect, outside of what usually gets termed as "mainline Protestantism"; despite my background in that tradition, however, I can't tell you anything about their worship practices. They're better known for their "Reading Rooms" (there's one at 12th and I downtown and several others around the city), and the Christian Science Monitor, which has been a fairly prestigious newspaper (seven Pulitizer Prizes, mostly for national and international reporter), though it no longer appears in print form.

The idea that they might want to leave the property after 20 or so years isn't necessarily surprising. If it was not a welcoming building, many might well choose to worship elsewhere. In the early 1990s, many were still moving away from the central city rather than moving in. And surely, like any US denomination, they faced dwindling numbers from the time when they first built. Despite their differences from mainline  Protestantism, they are undoubtedly prone to the same demographic and cultural changes that Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, et al. are facing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched a movie you've never heard of before, and I urge you *never* to see ("Eye See You" (repackaged as "D-Tox")). Trust me: Despite the star-studded cast, *don't ever watch this*.

Anyway, the final 2/3 of the film takes place in a rehab center in "Wyoming" (although this part of the movie was filmed in British Columbia), and the rehab center was clearly some sort of Brutalist effort, but I can't find it anywhere, and I've spent over thirty minutes searching. Does anyone know what it is?

Screenshot 2018-05-19 at 12.57.38.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DonRocks said:

I watched a movie you've never heard of before, and I urge you *never* to see ("Eye See You" (repackaged as "D-Tox")). Trust me: Despite the star-studded cast, *don't ever watch this*.

Anyway, the final 2/3 of the film takes place in a rehab center in "Wyoming" (although this part of the movie was filmed in British Columbia), and the rehab center was clearly some sort of Brutalist effort, but I can't find it anywhere, and I've spent over thirty minutes searching. Does anyone know what it is?

Screenshot 2018-05-19 at 12.57.38.png

This comment has nothing to do with the quoted text (I'd just like an answer to that question, and don't want it lost).

But I've since thought about this discussion some more. I can't say I understand Brian's love for the Third Church of Christ (although I do feel sad that it was razed), however, returning to the classical music analogy above ... there are many compositions that nobody except aficionados have ever heard of, yet, these aficionados, with all their considerable knowledge, would lament these compositions disappearing - this, even though the vast majority of people wouldn't even notice.

Example: Can you, the reader, name *one piece* by Haydn? I suspect most of you cannot, despite Haydn being considered a peer with, and sometimes preferred to, Mozart, by some experts. He wrote 106 symphonies - would you *really* care if it had been 105? Probably not. The examples I could rattle off are endless.

There's one problem though: We have other, more significant examples of Brutalist architecture not one mile from where the Third Church of Christ was - we can start with the Watergate, continue to the Hirshhorn, and move onto the Canadian Embassy, the Dupont Circle Metro Station, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and maybe even the Washington Hilton. I propose that each of these is a more important (not necessarily "better") example of the genre - what I'm saying is: It isn't like we've wiped out the only Brutalist building in the city; there are *plenty* of other significant representations, and the Third Church was taking up some seriously valuable real estate with limited use. 

Back to the elimination of the Haydn sonata - it would be sad, yes; tragic, no, because there are so many others, and quite frankly, they're a lot alike.

I respect Brian's expert opinion, and completely understand where he's coming from, but certain things are competing against forces so great, that they cannot possibly survive them - I believe this to be the case here. Unlike a symphonic score, buildings take up valuable space, and that's a problem.

Based on the totality of this, it's sad, but not catastrophic; losing the Old Stone House in Georgetown would be something more akin to catastrophic, as it's one of very, very few surviving 18th-century buildings remaining in DC.

BTW, don't sell yourself short w.r.t. being familiar with Haydn symphonies. Speakers up!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2015 at 11:28 AM, brian said:

I think of a K Street box as an office building designed to maximize building envelope, allowable square footage, and built right to the property line in a way that optimizes perimeter and column layout in order to accommodate the maximum number of private lawyer offices on the perimeter of the building. Glass, stone, concrete, brick - they're all effectively the same building. K Street is architecturally remarkable not for any one building, but for developing an architecture that's truly DC in nature - working within height and building limits to achieve pretty much the same end result no matter how a building is designed. 60 years ago they were mostly stone. 30 years ago mostly concrete. Now mostly glass. Same buildings.

---

Especially downtown, DC designed and owns a lot more sidewalk space than places like East Falls Church and Merrifield have. If anything, buildings in downtown DC use every square inch allowable by zoning to a far greater extent than those in the suburbs, because every square inch of land is far more valuable. Broad sidewalks and trees in DC aren't the product of generous developers - they're the product of L'Enfant's planning and the city's safeguarding of that legacy. Of course, the city screwed up decades ago by allowing so many of those new office buildings to eliminate service alleys which has a huge impact today, but oh well...

Brian was right; I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...