National Register Stable Reduced to Rubble in Blagden Alley

The author has quietly been following this story since the plans for the property were first shared at a community meeting of the Blagden Alley-Naylor Court Association last spring. The stable (referred to as a garage) facade was to have been spared according to the decision by the HPRB. The building died last week. The story has recently been broken in the blogosphere by Badwolf (here) and the president of the BANCA (here).  The developers of the project articulated their position well as they responded to questions posed by the president  of the BANCA. You can read their responses through these links above.

Replication is not preservation. We have seen this in Naylor Court where a 1863 stable and 1868 home were destroyed several years ago. The developers promised to rebuild the stable however, their "replica" included windows that had never existed in the original (guided by the bastardization of the stable over decades) and the proportions of the replica widely miss the mark of a classic stable. They seem  to have completely misunderstood the basic bones of the anatomy of a stable.

The 9th Street side buildings in the Blagden Alley property were damaged beyond salvage by a large paulownia tree that had over time and through neglectful abandonment worked it way through loose mortar. Razing this building was understandable.

The path of the perfidious "Paulownious assault"

The stable/former auto repair shop however, faced the alley and was part of the history of the alley. Further, every building in Naylor Court and Blagden Alley has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1990 and thereby nationally recognized as a significant collection of buildings that together define the historic nature of the two alleys. This fact is usually lost in discussion, even within the community. It's the impact of the collection rather than the individual buildings that is important. These two alleys have been losing bits and pieces of the collection piecemeal over the last four decades.

The original building that has just been razed, had been greatly modified from its days as a stable. The hayloft door had been bricked up and converted into a small window. The hayloft beam is long gone. The original entrance - the arch of which you can see on the right - had been enlarged with an "I" beam across 90% of the front of the building to accommodate cars. The building clearly had shared a party wall with another building, now long gone, as you can see by the joist remnants in the photo on the right. There was little left to suggest that this was a stable to the untrained eye. The structural and architectural integrity of this building was badly compromised.

Demolition began at the front of the property and proceeded westward. One day the building looked like this ...

          

and then like this.

It will be very interesting to follow how the developers recreate the stable in their own image from the rubble. It probably won't look much like a stable. Maybe they can come up with a name for the replica building that evokes at least a thought that this building was once a stable or auto repair shop.

The question about what to preserve and what to destroy lies at the hub of the historic preservation conversation. One can understand the developer's point of view when something is beyond salvage. Yet the community voices have been soft and proclaim that "progress is important" and "you should have seen the place 20 years ago." Many echoed concerns about their property values. Ironically, had the collection of stables and small shops been better protected over the years, the two alleys would have become destination places that had a clear identity that would stir the imagination with a true sense of place. This stable will at least be given a tombstone by the developers in the form of some kind of nod to its past presence through the final replicated structure which may look something like the image below where the stable is replaced by the brick structure on the left. The replicated structure will not look like a stable but a combination of stable and auto-repair shop. I guess this is one way to keep a sense of the memory alive but I highly doubt that very many people will understand the meaning of the structure in the future. It would be nice if the developers did come up with a clever moniker to honor the building as has been done elsewhere in the city (e.g. Rainbow Lofts named in memory of the auto-body paint shop)

The developers have assured the community "that the end product will not be any different from what we saw before."  "What we saw before" however, did not reflect the original building but rather, the results of years of modification. This is now going to be immortalized as it has been in Naylor Court in the previous developer demolition.

Perhaps the most prophetic statement in all of this comes from the little "haiku graffiti" on the wall opposite this job site written well before this most recent unstable life was extinguished.

Which building has to die? Which building is allowed to live? Why?

Architectural life support

In the classic car business, provenance and originality are everything. A highly original and well-maintained car may not look as “pretty” as a fully restored “trailer queen” yet in many ways its intrinsic value is so much higher to discerning buyers. So it is with buildings.

Is it imperative to preserve a badly decayed building that is already almost entirely destroyed by neglect? Or is the promise of a reconstructed “Disney Land replica nod to history” sufficient justification to destroy it? That is a question that continuously faces the Historic Preservation Review Board in Washington D.C. It’s very difficult to know precisely the “right answer” which is why periodically difficult cases are referred to the Mayor’s Agent as the ultimate judicial higher authority with binding legal authority. 

Of course once a building is reduced to a pile of bricks, by definition, it is no longer a building but simply a collection of old building material that can be reused in one way or another.

What is the “spirit of a place” and how does a particular building contribute? The author has come to the personal conclusion that in many ways, the decision making process in the restoration and preservation of old buildings has many parallels with classic car restoration. There are several critical influencing factors. 

2300 block of Connecticut Avenue NW

That said, given sufficient money and expertise, anything can be restored whether it is a car or a building. The hanging question is if it is worthwhile. When something is “one of a kind” or a very rare example by a famous architect or carmaker, it may be worth saving because of its sentimental and intrinsic value. Maybe an historic event happened in the building or perhaps the car won a famous series of races or was owned by someone famous.

If a building or a classic car has been looked after over the years and remains solid, there is really no reason not to reclaim it to former glory. If a building is a member of a collection of similar properties and is in good shape (especially if it is protected by designation in the National Register of Historic Places) there are arguably even more good reasons to restore the building. One would never break up a priceless service collection of china.

Much of the historic preservation decision-making process (as with cars) depends greatly on the life the building has led. Has it been abused? How much structural damage has occurred? Has it been neglected for years? Has it been modified beyond recognition? What is its contribution to the immediate area?

This was a cheap car to begin with (now approaching scrap value). The hourly basic restoration cost is the same for this car as it is for a high quality marque such as a Bentley or Aston Martin, yet after it is all done, the final value of the car will still be very low and cannot possibly justify the expense.

Is “replication” respectful or just a sop to the battle cries of preservationists as a small price to pay for their ultimate and self-regulating end goals written by them and to which they then become “obligated” to enforce? There are few clear guidelines in this rather murky area and each case will probably continue to be judged on an opinion-based foundation rather than by a matrix of scientific principles influenced by past judgments and reflection on the long-term outcomes of those judgments.

Incorporation can be elegantly accomplished and is always preferable to replication

In many instances, the mews of London that are so charming are 100’s of years old. However, there are important differences between London and Washington.  The London mews buildings (former stables) have usually been in continuous use and therefore maintained. Limited to the center of the city they have represented affordable housing to many, occupied by ever ascending waves of affluent occupants.  Washington D.C. in contrast experienced massive urban flight 60 years ago, plummeting from a population of 800,000 to 500,000 and was “architecturally unstable” from a preservation point of view.

Today Washington DC is experiencing a phenomenal surge of growth and renewal.

Sadly however, many buildings that have languished, been abused or abandoned during the long period of urban decay, have died an ignoble death due to either neglect or lack of protection. These small buildings are the fascinating faces of past lives, reflecting thousands of day-to-day human interactions that continue to speak to us. Maybe in this increasingly walkable, “green,” “smart growth,” city we can all slow down a bit and take some time to listen to their voices and their stories a little better.