
Washington, D.C. Real Estate Development News
When the time comes to decide whether to raze or preserve a cherished property, there are factors, like those in Nicholson's dilemma, that run the gamut from practical to emotional - and everything in between.
According to Amy Gardner of Bethesda, Maryland's Gardner Mohr Architects LLC, we live in different houses now. “People are living in housing stock which, whether from the turn-of-the-(last) century, pre-war, post war, 1950s or ‘60s – anything up to the ‘80s, doesn’t fit their lifestyles.” What’s more, they are “energy hogs,” Gardner observed, noting increasingly clients are approaching the firm with critical questions about saving or demolishing outmoded family homes.
Lowering the Boom
In the so-called boom years, Gardner recalled, about a 15-year period from the early 1990s into the first part of this decade, it was very common to see an older home in the greater D.C. metropolitan area destroyed, often by a builder to start a custom home on the order of 5,000-7,000 s.f., depending on site and zoning. Today, Gardner said, and even with problematical older homes, “We have a lot of clients come to us and say, ‘I love my neighborhood, the schools; I really don’t want to move. We’ve been looking at houses to buy and we’re not finding any place that’s better than what we have, and want to look at options to renovate and meet our family’s needs.’”
Aside from aesthetics which may involve poor configuration of space, and citing issues that may include antiquated mechanical systems, rotted siding, inadequate wiring (more common in turn-of-the-century homes), poor insulation, deteriorating roofs, movement around window openings, inferior HVAC systems and/or any combination of the aforementioned elements, which is often the case, Gardner said the decision to renovate vs. tear down and start over on the same lot is often painstaking – and highly expensive. “We can be talking hundreds of thousands of dollars,” she affirmed, maybe even something close to the cost of purchasing a new home. But, there are also different levels of renovation.
“Homeowners generally have to think about their long term goals when doing a thoroughgoing renovation,” Gardner explained, with “thoroughgoing” meaning the existing fabric of the house is maintained. “The money in – where the homeowner may not be able to get that money back out for quite some time, like if they were to turn around and want to sell that house – those values plus the renovation values are high enough that they really wouldn’t be able to sell right away.”
Gardner also indicated that in the firm’s purview, and considering sustainability factors which are naturally key in building issues today, “the most efficient use of materials are the ones you don’t throw out.” To that end, the architect believes in identifying the characteristics, qualities and strengths of the structure’s existing elements, keeping them and building on them to create something more attuned to contemporary sensibilities.
What’s Old Can Be New Again
Conceding that sometimes, especially at the outset of a project, the decision to save a house is something she considers an act of faith, Gardner, who is also a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, explained that preserving can have different facets. “Preserving can mean anything from saving the foundations of the foundation wall and building from there, or all the way to preserving a house largely intact and doing a kind of interior renovation, to preserving the house intact and doing a complete gut of it with an addition, along with providing all new building systems and finishes,” she said. In the last iteration, you essentially get a whole new house without having completely torn down the one that was there.
Noting that the firm starts every project in this vein with an energy audit in order to understand the performance of the house and its systems, Gardner said at times she and her partner utilize the services of a structural engineer as well. The structure itself, a barometer of other failures (a cracking foundation wall could indicate possible water infiltration), is a good prognosticator of time and cost. That said, and even with the proverbial roof falling in, mitigating circumstances such as one that arose with a Gardner Mohr client a few years back involved a 1920s era bungalow, about which Gardner said “a sanity check would have indicated the house be torn down.” The foundation, however, was discovered to be comprised of 20-inch thick granite walls, and demolition alone would have been exceedingly difficult. “That was the tipping point for the decision-making process about preserving that house,” Gardner affirmed.
Also identifying current lot and zoning issues as major factors in the decision to retain and renovate, Gardner said because zoning laws are not static, on occasion people tear down and try to fill out the zoning envelope by building something as large as they can, which makes for an odd and cumbersome proportion between the house and the site. In the example of a current client in Bethesda undergoing renovation of a mid-century home they’d considered razing, Gardner said because of zoning, if they tore down the home, they could not rebuild with the same north/south orientation that has served the homeowners well. “While that may not sound like a big deal,” she explained, “right now it’s ideal for passive energy strategies, and they would lose that advantage.”
The Greening of the Girders
If one does decide to let go of a house and desires to do so within sustainable parameters, deconstruction is a green-friendly alternative to demolition, where depending on the deconstruction category, reusable and code-abiding materials from the building such as flooring, lighting fixtures, paneling, plumbing, bricks and lumber are stripped and can be donated to charity, precipitating a tax write-off.
“We believe in saving what we can save,” Gardner said about renovating vs. razing. “We believe in the fabric of the neighborhood and trying to preserve that, and, overall, I think there’s a kind of cultural value in trying to preserve these places.”
Photography by Celia Pearson
For a bilingual 3-year-old in Washington, her father’s Russian heritage and a TV program’s format resulted in an unprecedented bedroom design challenge where Vienna, Va.-based interior designer Rachel James was concerned.
As a guest designer on HGTV’s child-centric program “Kidspace,” the former elementary, middle and high school guidance counselor-turned-designer, celebrated for her inspired children’s designs, set out to honor the family’s legacy but also to cultivate the interests of a spirited toddler with a predilection for nesting, reading and hide-and-seek – all on a $1,000 budget. The result: a Russian-themed room that reflected the cathedrals of St. Petersburg, including a headboard reminiscent of the fabled onion domes of Russian architecture, and a special domed tent into which the child could escape with books and just about anything else.
“In real life,” James elaborated, “the cathedral domes are candy-colored.” To that end a wooden headboard was “jigsawed out,” with batting, and the colorful fabric stretched across. The top of the headboard consisted of wooden sconces turned upside-down to emulate the points of the cathedral: high and low. The English and Russian alphabets were splashed across an opposite wall, and instead of an all-too-popular pink, the designer chose a kid-friendly but more elegant shade of purple, with a little chandelier to boot, so that as the child grows there will be less need for an additional redecorating expenditure. “It spoke to the needs of the parents and the child’s own preferences,” James said, “and it also is a fun, colorful room for her to grow up in.”
Don’t Eat Paste
Color palette, parental ideas and the child’s personality all withstanding, James takes the concept of kids’ design quite seriously when it comes to issues of safety, functionality and the kinds of toxic emissions readily found in such items as carpeting, where glue, backing and stain guards contain high levels of VOC’s. “In a study I think was done in Europe,” James said, “they actually found those compounds in breast milk, so it’s getting to the child somehow.” The designer said that more and more, parents are interested in eco-friendly carpeting and while she believes no product is 100 percent green, there are rugs made of natural wool and backing. And on the heels of hundreds of reported child choking fatalities, James’ drapery workroom, Stephenson Vestal, is the noted inventor and initial manufacturer of the Safe-T-Shade, a cordless conveyor for Roman and Balloon shades that eliminates visible cords and their inherent threats to young children. They work on a spring issue, according to James, and have been endorsed by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. She uses them liberally, when warranted, in her kids’ room designs.
Out Came the Sun
Where window treatments are concerned, James recalled a client whose 4-year-old was waking up each day at about 4 in the morning, and the exhausted parents came to her inquiring about blackout shades. Incorporating such with their daughter’s penchant for princesses and ball gowns (translation: things that are sparkly, magical, light and airy) presented another design challenge for James.
“Window treatments are very expensive and good design, along with quality furniture, is also very expensive,” James said candidly. “And kids grow so fast and their preferences change so much, sometimes every day, the majority of my clients want something that’s going to grow with the child.” Blackout lining, for example, can be put into almost any kind of fabric aside from a sheer or mesh, so James took the child’s two favorite colors, pink and a “turquoise-y blue,” in a shimmery fabric, and made drapery panels that contained the blackout element. A standard pleat and traversing rod on top, which helps them open and close quickly, finished the concept. “It’s flashy and iridescent,” James recalled, “and at 12, she’ll like it. Maybe even at 16 or college age, she’ll like it.”
According to James, while there are plenty of “child-centered, child-themed, child-sized things, and some of these things are so hopelessly adorable you can’t help but get a little club chair or mini-desk,” most manufacturers today recognize that people buy things into which children will grow. Sometimes the price point is higher for furniture that lends itself to conversion, and you have to pay for a conversion kit, James said, but for many parents the cost of a kit for when the child makes the transition from crib to bed is better than buying a whole new bed, for example. “It all depends on the motivation of the client to keep redoing the room,” she added.
Where the Wild Things Are
Fabrics-wise, especially for kids of toddler age, James said it’s a function of being a kid to smash trucks, spill Kool-Aid or drop popsicles. Stores such as Jo-Ann and entities such as eBay are good resources for more inexpensive and so-called kid-proof fabrics, and people tend to gravitate towards Target, Kmart or Walmart for durable kids’ furnishings and the like. “I have a designer friend with two kids who has just slipcovered everything,” James quipped.
Because of her education and psychology background, James said parents are often excited because they know that she is really in touch with their child’s sensibilities. If the child is older, James includes him or her in the design process by asking about favorite colors, favorite things to do, where and how the child plays, and how the child would describe him or herself.
“I think just like with any other design, there is a balance between functional interiors and beautiful interiors,” James said of her child-centered motifs, adding that she really misses being in school with the kids. “At some point, I’d like to go back into the helping professions, but for now, I really love what I’m doing.”
Library will not tempt fate, fireplaces only for show |
New teen room...not |
Back facade |
Terraced back lawn |
Installation of new roof |
Peabody Room |
Perfectly crafted millwork |
Modern stair case |
Back in the ‘70s, comedian Steve Allen, already somewhat enshrined for his deft hosting of “The Tonight Show,” won an Emmy, a Peabody, an Encyclopedia Britannica Award and a few others for his cutting edge “Meeting of Minds,” what critics called “the ultimate talk show.” The format for PBS’ “Meeting of Minds,” which Allen created, produced and hosted, was both ingenious and simple: Take a group of history’s seminal characters from different time periods, and with significantly different values and perspectives (Cleopatra, George Patton, Socrates, Machiavelli and Thomas Jefferson, to name a few), put them in a room together to solve a particular problem, and let ‘em rip. Anachronism would never be the same.
On N Street in Georgetown, a three-story row house built in 1960 sits, perhaps anachronistically, among its more genteel and embellished 19th century brethren. Without vocal chords, and though the interior emulates its more historical neighbors with flourishes such as a curved stair, niches and heavy molding, the home’s real voice is manifested in a closer relationship to its mid-20th century roots: in other words, somewhat undistinguished.
I Can Dream, Can’t I?
For Douglas Rixey of Rixey-Rixey Architects, a progressive young homeowner and his fiancee’s desire to renovate the interior and also add a floor, thereby breaking through the proverbial Georgetown (glass) ceiling which mandates structures like this generally cannot build up, became a task of monumental proportion mired in research, hearings, personalities, reviews, variances and still more variances, not to mention adroitness with a magic wand and maybe some advanced spell-casting. In addition to navigating a sea of the usual bureaucratic boards and suspects, building up, where the property was concerned, would require feats of Georgetown geometry and construction contortion: The house is ringed by neighbors and their gardens, with no access to a backyard or public alley for scaffolding.
“The client had purchased the home from his parents a couple of years ago and was living there as a bachelor,” Rixey said. “He became engaged, married this month, and they are going to want to start a family and expand the house.” In short, the couple wanted to include a master bedroom suite as a top floor, or fourth story, to the house.
At a total of 4,500 s.f., 1,500 s.f. per floor, and at 58.7 percent lot coverage, the building was already very close to its allowable lot coverage, Rixey explained. In Georgetown, in the client’s zone, acceptable lot coverage is only 60 percent, so to try and build out with a master suite – with only 1.3 percent lot coverage remaining – would mean only a 44 s.f. addition, not exactly the type of master suite experience his client had in mind.
According to Rixey, who, along with wife and partner Victoria, has been plying his craft in Georgetown for 25 years, and rules and review boards withstanding, it’s extremely rare in the area to have a house in the first place that is able to receive another floor. “Most of the historic houses will have a fairly decorative top floor, maybe with turrets, decorative cornice or some sort of architectural embellishment that basically makes it so you can’t add on to the top without severely affecting the character,” he explained. The home in question was somewhat nondescript, “…sort of Colonial Revival,” Rixey said, “but with a very plain top and nothing extraordinary about the house.”
Mr. Rixey Goes to Georgetown
Still, the process to acquire permission to build up was daunting. In most of Georgetown, a three-story or 40-foot limit defines residential architecture. Because the house on N Street was mid-20th century, however, and though it had three floors, the floor-to-ceiling height on each floor was at 8 and 9 feet, typical of more modern-day construction, Rixey said, where its towering Victorian neighbors’ homes clocked in at 10, 11 and 12 feet per story. In this respect, the house fell far below the mandated 40-foot limit. “We could add an extra floor and still be within Georgetown’s height limit,” Rixey said, noting they still needed a variance for zoning purposes.
Submitting first to the Old Georgetown Board (OGB) as the building is visible from a public space, the action required a simultaneous submission to the Advisory Neighborhood Committee (ANC), which reviews proposals with an eye toward community impact regarding open space, neighbor relations and the like, replete with letters of support from the neighbors. Filing for historic review – another step – was done “in concept,” because the architect wasn’t certain it would really be approved and was attempting to gauge reaction. When the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) did approve the concept, another application to ANC had to be made, this time for the variance.
With the variance process several months in duration and made up of components including public notification of intent by posting signs, photographing signs, notarizing an affidavit that signs were posted in a specific time frame and providing names and addresses of all neighbors within a 200-foot radius, a September hearing was scheduled. “The issue,” Rixey maintained, recalling that the 90-minute hearing was more like an inquisition as these things go, “was that they needed to be convinced we couldn’t glean extra living space by excavating below grade or doing an at-grade addition.” The dearth of remaining allowable lot coverage precluded an at-grade addition, and regarding a possible basement addition, the house had been built by excavating into a hillside, Rixey explained, basically already siting three sides of the first floor below grade, except for the façade. “In any other jurisdiction, the first floor of this house would have been considered a basement because of its lack of perimeter exposure and we wouldn’t have needed variance for what would only be a two-story house,” Rixey said. “D.C. is the only jurisdiction that measures the number of stories at the front of the building.”
Capitol Risk
Among more than a dozen fourth story design alternatives presented for review in the process was a loggia, or balcony, on the front facing N. Street, which also faced south, providing a view out on the city from an outside terrace. With rooftop decks or terraces controversial in Georgetown, and typically not approved, Rixey’s design was no exception. (According to Rixey, however, the front balcony was actually a response to design constraints – an attempt to make the mass of the building recede somewhat and make it a little more special than simply a front façade.) The client also wanted a lot more glass, and glazing is antithetical to historic work, Rixey said. Nevertheless a modern take on a mansard roof with a dormer, though not classically detailed, was approved.
With a final historic review step remaining in the approval process contingent on permit and construction drawings, actual construction remains another conundrum (here’s where the magic wand and advanced spell-casting may again be advantageous).
“Construction (expected to begin in the spring) will be tricky,” Rixey said. The building has some rear alley access but cannot be accessed from either side due to neighbors’ properties, which include a beautiful garden on one and a narrow, private walkway on the other. Building scaffolding and staging construction equipment conventionally is out of the question. To that end, the architect is contemplating such attack modes as prefabricating the brick worksite walls in sections, off-site, and having them delivered and installed by crane. According to Rixey, prefab walls are common in commercial work but not in residential. Another strategy is to suspend scaffolding from the building and not touch the ground – to hang it off the side of the building, cantilevered out over the neighbors’ property. “It’s iffy, to say the least,” he conceded, affirming that logistics are still very much in the investigation stage.
“Five years ago, the extra floor would never have been approved,” Rixey said. “The community would be up in arms about people doing additions and taking up open space. Now times have changed; people’s attitudes have changed. I kind of expected it, but it still amazes me that this additional floor was approved.”
![]() |
Old rendering |