Photo by valkyrieh116 on Flickr.

In part 1, I laid out five principles for what’s important to preserve.

  • Iconic structures: True “landmarks” based on the federal criteria.
  • Architectural diversity: There’s truth to the argument that tastes change and it’s valuable to have a diversity of styles through preserving the most notable examples.
  • Irreproducible craftsmanship: Buildings using materials or building techniques which are impossible or unusually expensive to reproduce.
  • Neighborhood consistency: Maintaining the architectural unity of a neighborhood that possesses it.
  • Functional urbanism: Entrances to the street, an open and welcoming facade, and ease of pedestrian access that contribute to the vibrancy of a district.

Next, here are some thoughts about what we should not preserve:

  • Mediocre examples of architectural styles: Just because one building of a style is landmarked does not mean another ought to be simply on the basis of that criterion alone.
  • Poor urbanism: Preservation should not stand in the way of making a building with a poor relationship to the street evolve into a more welcoming one. This doesn’t mean any blank wall building can simply be torn down, but that a change which disturbs the facade to improve the streetscape should be easier than one that does not improve it.
  • Low density: Preservation is not zoning. A building can be taller than its neighbors and still fit in with a historic area. If a neighborhood wants to keep buildings low, zoning is the proper route. Preservationists should not be in the business of dictating heights.

Which factors would you add? Take away? Reword?

David Alpert created Greater Greater Washington in 2008 and was its executive director until 2020. He formerly worked in tech and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco Bay, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He lives with his wife and two children in Dupont Circle.