The owner, architect, builder and whoever else was involved hit this one out of the park. It should serve as a template for future infill structures. Impressive…agreed!
Well, I guess I won’t win any popularity contests here by saying this, but I feel that this building just cheapens the character of the neighborhood. The above comments illustrate that architecture like this simply fools people into historical misunderstanding, rather cynically, in my view. This would seem to call into question the entire notion of a “historic neighborhood.” I guess you could call it the Colonial Williamsburg-ization of Church Hill.
Hello. If by “neighborhood examples” you mean examples of what I consider to be good contemporary infill in Church Hill, I’m afraid I can’t. Actually, even if I broadened the question to include infill in similarly scaled townhouse/mixed use neighborhoods across the US, I would find it difficult to provide many examples. That’s the problem I’m lamenting.
I actually have to agree with Don O. The CAR guidelines also agree with Don, calling for infill to be “distinctly modern”. The problem is that every time anyone tries distinctly modern the neighborhood hates it and CAR backs down (i.e. the short 30th St. affair). You’d have to be very tough and live in another neighborhood to even propose that type building Don’s talking about. You’d also have to have a stupidly large design professional budget and a lot of luck in finding the right design guy.
17 comments
Very, VERY nice renovation done on this building. This is an example of what developers should be doing up here. Great work!
Terry Peters liked this on Facebook.
@David – perhaps even more impressive, that’s new construction
The owner, architect, builder and whoever else was involved hit this one out of the park. It should serve as a template for future infill structures. Impressive…agreed!
Brand new building! Looks really good, Charlie.
Laura Chubb liked this on Facebook.
Ja’Nai Tellis liked this on Facebook.
My favorite NEW building! Driving or walking past is startling – it looks like it’s been there forever, but mysteriously hasn’t aged a day.
Ann Schweitzer liked this on Facebook.
Genene Chubb liked this on Facebook.
What a building!!! Thanks Charlie!
Very nice addition to the neighborhood. Hopefully a great tenant will fill the space.
Well, I guess I won’t win any popularity contests here by saying this, but I feel that this building just cheapens the character of the neighborhood. The above comments illustrate that architecture like this simply fools people into historical misunderstanding, rather cynically, in my view. This would seem to call into question the entire notion of a “historic neighborhood.” I guess you could call it the Colonial Williamsburg-ization of Church Hill.
@8 Can you provide a few neighborhood examples of “what good looks like” from your perspective?
David,
Hello. If by “neighborhood examples” you mean examples of what I consider to be good contemporary infill in Church Hill, I’m afraid I can’t. Actually, even if I broadened the question to include infill in similarly scaled townhouse/mixed use neighborhoods across the US, I would find it difficult to provide many examples. That’s the problem I’m lamenting.
Don – that’s super helpful. Thank you.
I actually have to agree with Don O. The CAR guidelines also agree with Don, calling for infill to be “distinctly modern”. The problem is that every time anyone tries distinctly modern the neighborhood hates it and CAR backs down (i.e. the short 30th St. affair). You’d have to be very tough and live in another neighborhood to even propose that type building Don’s talking about. You’d also have to have a stupidly large design professional budget and a lot of luck in finding the right design guy.