The development company bought the property from the National Restaurant Association with partner First Potomac for $39.6 million last October, and plans to spend $100 million to build a 170,000 s.f. office building on the site. Developers hope to achieve a LEED rating on the new building.
According to the Business Journal, the companies hope to open a new building by 2014, a date that would require demolition to begin soon.
Washington, D.C. real estate development news
11 comments:
Such a waste.
It's amazing that this building's structure can't be re-used. I guess they'll be mazing out the sites zoning envelope, 11 stories there about?
I understand that the lower floor-to-floor of most older office buildings is an obstacle to attain "trophy" rent levels (which of course all developers and owners want, understandably).
But to lead off saying that this is all about creating a 'greener' building is disingenuous.
The new building certainly will be greener than the existing, but the much-greener-still option would be to maintain the existing structural frame. Install new high-efficiency HVAC, new high-performance curtain wall, etc. Don't trash the immense amount of embodied energy that's in the concrete frame. If zoning allows additional height or FAR, the existing structure almost certainly can take it, possibly with some modest upgrades. Lots of other buildings have done it.
This whole business of demolishing an existing building ostensibly in the name of constructing something "greener" his complete hogwash. It's an excuse for a developer to put up yet another "marquee" glass-and-steel structure that can command pricey tenants and high-end retail.
And if that's what the developer wants to do, and the city provides the necessary permitting and approvals, then so be it. But the whole "greener" argument is laughably nonsensical.
In applying for LEED certification, the developer should get docked for tearing down an existing building. I guess I could naively hope that the new building will be an extraordinary work of architecture, but that seems unlikely.
The existing building is hideous anyway. Glass and steel would be much better in this case.
uhh, the existing building is glass and steel!
Knock that puppy down. If you want to see the existing shell re-purposed, buy it from Akridge. Blog sites have given birth to armchair-developers. So hilarious. What about a park? Or an aquarium?
"The existing building is hideous anyway."
So re-skin it, or do a gut renovation. But don't tell me that you're tearing down a perfectly functional building because you want something "greener."
MotoMike, it's not "armchair developers" who have commented above, it's people who don't like the misrepresentations of PR flacks. The article leads off with a grossly incorrect statement about sustainable design. You should be glad that someone takes it seriously enough not to let the PR go unchallenged.
More on the architect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlastimil_Koubek
Post a Comment
Commercial ads will be deleted, so don't even think about it.