16th and Eye Street, NW
A 1970s Church Building: Should It Remain Forever?
Q. What is the history and status of the landmark application?
A. In 1991, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City (Committee of 100) filed the landmark application, without the prior knowledge or consent of Third Church. A copy of the 1991 application is available on this website. The Committee of 100 has since indicated that the application was filed primarily to prevent Third Church from exploring a development proposal made by an adjacent Eye Street property owner. In Washington, DC, a pending landmark application imposes the same restrictions upon a property owner as a formally-approved landmark.
It is worth noting that the Third Church structure was only 19 years old when the application was filed. It is also worth highlighting a letter that was received from the Committee of 100 indicating that they did not intend to pursue the designation if it would cause significant disruption to Third Church.
In 2007, Third Church formally requested that its case be heard by the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). In early November, the case was presented to HPRB, but the board felt that additional time was required to give appropriate consideration to the case.
A final hearing was held on December 6, resulting in the Church being landmarked. The transcript from that hearing, available on this site, makes clear that even in the estimation of the HPRB and the Historic Planning Office Staff, the church building has significant deficiencies, e.g., see pp. 121/2 re a “low bar” standard; p. 129 re “very significant and tough design problems”; p. 139 re the need for “adaptation for current use”; p.141 re severe and difficult problems; p. 172 re unwelcoming aspects.
Q. What is the basis for the landmark application?
A. The existing church building has been cited, by the proponents of the landmark application, as an example of Brutalism, a form of modern architecture that was popular in the 1950s through the 1970s. There is some debate about this. The original architect of Third Church, Araldo Cossutta, has stated that "brutalist" is an incorrect description. While the building follows in the form of Le Corbusier's beton brut (raw concrete) style in material and execution, it does not reflect the harsh, angular, and rough characteristics most often noted in American brutalist architecture.
In preparation for the HPRB hearing, and to independently evaluate Third Church's rebuttal of material in the landmark application, Third Church and retained architectural historian EHT Traceries to evaluate the landmark application's claims. The Traceries report concluded that "there is sufficient confusion and error as to a number of fundamental facts in the Application; therefore landmark designation on the basis of this Application would be inconsistent with D. C. historic preservation regulations."
In response to the Church's rebuttal and the Traceries report, the Committee of 100 admitted that much of the original application was incorrect, but maintained that Third Church should be landmarked as an example of modernist architecture. Washington, DC holds numerous other, and much better, examples of modernism - such as the MLK Library and L'Enfant Plaza - which are either owned or occupied by the government and can be landmarked without imposing such a tremendous burden on a religious institution.
Q. What is the plan for the property on the northwest corner of 16th and Eye? What will happen to the existing church building?
A. This property currently consists of the circa-1971 Third Church of Christ, Scientist building, a plaza, a 30,000-SF office building, and a small underground parking garage. The church structure has long been obsolete in terms of meeting the needs of the Third Church, and is very expensive to maintain. Engineering studies have determined that due to its monolithic reinforced concrete and interdependent construction, the building cannot be modified either inside or outside to meet the church's criteria. This is a solid structure that cannot be materially altered without sacrificing its architectural character and raising the question of structural integrity.
Third Church has been working with ICG Properties to explore options for the site that would enable the church to stay at the 16th and Eye location. ICG Properties owns the World Center building at 1600 K Street next door, and also owns the office building (known as the Monitor Building), the parking structure, and the land at 16th and Eye.
The church would like to continue its commitment to downtown Washington, D.C. Its members envision a smaller facility that is better suited to its programs and operational budget, and offers easy recognition and access to the general public from both directions of Sixteenth and I Streets and is suitable for community use. ICG Properties would like to see the corner enlivened with new development that would accommodate the church's needs, create an enhanced public plaza, and add new office and retail space. The revitalized corner property would follow the 16th Street Historic District guidelines and would be subject to review by the city's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB).
Q. What are the claims for architectural significance?
A. Araldo Cossutta, who also designed L'Enfant Plaza, was a partner in I.M. Pei's architectural firm during the 1960s and 1970s. Cossutta left the I.M. Pei firm in January 1970, before our church was completed. Pei Cobb Freed & Associates has confirmed that the work was completed by Cossutta, and that Pei had no involvement in the project.
Cossutta has indicated his dismay that, despite his original intent, the plaza surrounding the church building has become a "dead-end" and "a sad space.'
Some preservationists have also noted that the building is one of few examples of a Washington-area church in this modern style. This is because Third Church was one of very few churches to build in the city in the late 1960s, a time of riots and civil unrest. Some church members believe that, by suggesting that the church should be forced to keep a structure from this period, it is now, in a sense, being penalized for having made a commitment to the city during such a tenuous time.
For more information on the history of the building, particularly as it relates to the Historic Landmark application originally filed in 1991, view the Traceries report. The Traceries report also includes comments from Araldo Cossutta.
Q. Why does the church want a new building to replace the 1971 building?
A. Most importantly the building presents a bleak and uninviting image, with the entrance not visible from either direction on Eye St. and only from one direction on 16th St. Its exterior's unremitting blank walls are unfriendly to pedestrians and effectively block out the neighborhood that Third Church desires to serve. From the very beginning, the location of the building's entrance has been a huge problem for members and visitors to contend with. Additionally, the plaza appears unwelcoming with nothing of interest and no apparent connection to any meaningful space.
The interior is dark and not particularly welcoming. The auditorium is much larger than currently needed for Sunday services or other church programs.
The building is very expensive to maintain. As Marc Fisher, a columnist for the Washington Post, has reported, it costs because this routine maintenance task requires that scaffolding be erected. It is also unsafe to attempt many of these "routine" tasks. In addition, the building leaks and has other moisture-related problems; and its concrete façade, which was not sealed during construction, is deteriorating.
If required to retain the building, the church will immediately be faced with the need for a major upgrade: the installation of a completely new HVAC system. The feasibility of installing such a system within this particular building-potentially requiring the addition of a new penthouse-is not known at this time, but is certain to be extremely expensive.
The members of the church have decided that their church mission and related activities would be well served by a small, more intimate and light-filled building-more welcoming and spiritually uplifting. The landmark designation precludes demolition which is necessary for church members to construct a church in which they may achieve these goals and the religious exercise they believe they are entitled to under the First Amendment to the Constitution and current federal law.
Q. Why can't ICG and the church come up with a plan for adaptive reuse? Can the modern-style church building be incorporated into potential new construction? Can it be saved without compromising its integrity as an example of DC modernism?
A. Adaptive reuse as an approach has been analyzed extensively for this property. Both ICG Properties and , the architectural firm that has assisted with exploring alternatives for the site, have had strong success in adaptive reuse of historic properties. This includes the widely acclaimed , which incorporates the circa-1869 Masonic Temple.
In the case of the Third Church building, adaptive reuse is not feasible. One of the reasons for this is the nature of the poured-in-place concrete construction, with reinforcements throughout. This is a solid structure that, in many ways, cannot be altered. Additions to the outside would not be functional due to the inflexibility of the concrete structure and would detract from its modernist design origin.
Various "alternative concepts" have surfaced from representatives of the preservationist community, including sealing the building off in a glass box or significantly modifying its façade. The church, ICG, and the architectural team from Martinez & Johnson do not see merit in these alternatives - functionally, financially, or in terms of preserving historic integrity.
Q. What does the community think about the proposal to designate the church building an Historic Landmark, thereby ensuring its permanence on this corner?
A. The Dupont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) is unanimously opposed to the building's designation as a Historic Landmark, and requested that the Historic Preservation Review Board deny the landmark nomination. The Commissioners of the ANC have pointed out that when the ANC voted to support expansion of the 16th Street Historic District, it was assured by applicants and city officials that the Third Church edifice would not be a contributing structure within the expanded district. While Third Church was not, in fact, assigned "contributing" status within the historic district, the net effect of this pending landmark designation achieves an even more restrictive result.
Q. I would like a chance to express my views on this issue. Whom should I contact?
A. Third Church, as the owner and steward of this property, welcomes your input. Comments forwarded to this website will be reviewed by the church along with the design and development team that is exploring options for the corner of 16th and Eye Streets.
