Housing Complex

Top D.C. Architect: City Skyline Is Boring, and It’s Not Our Fault

2100K_PUD_Final.pdfCasual observers of D.C. development would be forgiven for thinking that every new big building in the city is statutorily required to be designed by Eric Colbert or Shalom Baranes. The two architects, along with a small handful of others, to a lesser extent, seem to be behind just about every project in the city's booming corridors. And to the substantial portion of the city's population that finds D.C.'s architecture boring, it's tempting to blame the architects, starting with this prolific pair.

But Baranes says it's not his fault. As reported by Michael Neibauer in the Washington Business Journal, Baranes grew frustrated at a recent Zoning Commission hearing after the board panned his attempt to add a touch of skyline diversity to an office building on K Street NW, and he opened up on what's wrong with D.C. architecture. In a word: It's the regulators.

Zoning Commission approval is required for the 11-story building, at 2100 K St. NW, but the commissioners took issue with the embellishment Baranes proposed to conceal the mechanical penthouse. The discussion turned technical, centering on whether or not the structure counted as a tower, which is allowed to exceed the 130-foot limit under the Height Act—Baranes said it did; the commissioners said true towers are skinnier—but it hit upon a central point of contention in the debate over the city's aesthetics: whether or not the city and its regulators should proactively ensure a more diverse skyline.

Other cities, Baranes said at the July 31 hearing, specifically address skyline configuration in their zoning codes and through studies. "When you look at the Washington, D.C., skyline," he said, "it’s basically unaddressed. It’s kind of a leftover."

He added, "We should be thinking about ways of improving it, not as a result of some penthouse regulations that require setbacks and don’t really address the aesthetics at all, but I feel here we have an opportunity to actually address the aesthetics of the skyline and we took it."

But as long as the Zoning Commission doesn't take it, the skyline along monolithic corridors like K Street is likely to remain uniform and bland.

Colbert, in a 2011 Washington City Paper profile by Lydia DePillis, also shifted responsibility from himself somewhat, emphasizing that he builds to his clients' needs and desires. The result, DePillis wrote, is often "to produce the least offensive structure possible" because "it's what most clients want." Still, by his own initiative he doesn't take risks for the sake of taking risks.

“I don’t want it to be boring," he told DePillis of his architectural style. "But on the other hand, I don’t want to put ornamentation on a building that doesn’t have some practical foundation. It’s hard for me to explain, but some buildings seem to be just kind of swoopy, just for the hell of it. And we don’t have the luxury or the desire to do that.”

Clearly, D.C.'s regulators don't approve of needless swoops. But for the sake of a skyline worth looking at, a few more swoops might be just what we need.

2100 K St. NW rendering from Shalom Baranes' Zoning Commission presentation

  • Malcolm

    Eric Colbert is nothing if not boring. Easy to understand his broad exposure. He is cheap.

    The new Whitman Walker development on 14th is really good but chances are Colbert's contribution to that was to sign the drawings. Most likely the developer, Giorgio Furioso, designed the building.

    Little of merit has emerged and cheap seems to be the new benchmark. Take a gander at that O St. Market project if you want how cheap cheap can be.

  • Anonymous

    I think you should also look at Floor Area Ratio as well. When you have a 130 foot height limit and a 11.0 or 12.0 floor area ratio, what do you think you're going to get? A 130 foot box. That's also a major issue.

  • Mark

    Agree it's an FAR issue. A box yields the most value and asthetics comes in materials.

  • http://nyirkaijoslat.beep.com ufobrainstorm


    Mihelyt közzétettem „ Yotengrit 2 „ c. könyvemben a „Nyirkai jóslatot”, a mások szellemi hulladékából élők serege vetette rá magát. Csűrték, csavarták, hamisították, magyarázták. Lett belőle „nyitrai”, sőt „nyiglai” jóslat is. Védtek, támadtak vele pártokat, személyeket, fűztek hozzá magyarázatokat. Jelentkeztek „póttartalékos próféták” is, akik a folytatás sugallatait vélték fülükben zümmögni. Nem mesét költök, de egy két lábon járó fajtánkbéli azt jelentette, hogy ő volna személy szerint a jóslatban említett „zengő sivatag tigrise”. Gondoltam, elszállásolom egy jó hírű állatkertben, de ezt zokon vette. Ám akadtak tudós koponyák is, akik elolvasták minden irányból és filológiai csapdák segítségével rájöttek, hogy én egyet s mást elhallgattam a jóslatból. Így igaz! Visszatartottam a személy szerint rám vonatkozó jóslatokat, hozzám közel álló személyekre és a Yotengrit Egyházra vonatkozókat, meg még sok egyebet, ami a jóslat közlésekor nyugtalanságot válthatott volna ki. Most, miután lelepleztek és többen is követelik, mint mondják, a „teljes igazságot”, szabadjára engedem a teljes jóslatot.

  • Pingback: blue ofica