Comments on: Preservationists pitch for Perpetual Building

By: paul_silver_spring

paul_silver_spring — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:15:42 +0000

Agreed that the proposed building doesn’t look much better… I don’t really like much current day architecture either. But if neither is gonna be aesthetically appealing, because no one is willing to pay for aesthetically appealing any longer like they were pre-1930ish, then we might as well have a multi-use high density development there. Scrap the pocket park though… a thought I think most who comment on here would agree with…. if we pooled the money and land resources from every dumb pocket park, we wouldn’t have had such an uproar over the loss of the turf, we would have had real green space somewhere in the CBD instead of cemented areas scattered across the neighborhood.

By: Jerry A. McCoy

Jerry A. McCoy — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:42:11 +0000

“Preserving the past, building for the future”

http://www.gazette.net/stories/011608/silvnew210501_32360.shtml

Perpetual Building Association Building Hearing Before the Montgomery County Planning Board, 1/10/08

http://www.mc-mncppc.org/board/agenda/2008/agenda20080110e.html

then click on each:
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12

By: Woodsider

Woodsider — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:59:24 +0000

Perhaps I am the only one who thinks it is an attractive building (circa 1958). Either way, it’s not architecturally significant so I also say “tear it down”.

By: Bob Lande

Bob Lande — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:54:53 +0000

I don’t think the building is really ugly – only that it is boring and generic looking. I live a few blocks away from it and have walked past it literally hundreds of times. Guess how many times I have paused and said to myself, “What an ugly or interesting or neat or ___ building?” None. It is just another bland looking, functional looking building. Knock it down!

By: Jennifer Deseo

Jennifer Deseo — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:49:22 +0000

Here's some food for thought, courtesy of the Silver Spring Scene:

(1) Silver Spring's Perpetual Building has a sister in Hyattsville.

(2) The project proposed for 8700 Georgia Ave would have ground-floor retail, two stories of office space, 11 stories of apartments, and an alley for a pocket park.

The existing building may not be architecturally unique. Then again, the proposed building ain't no looker, either.

What's Silver Spring to do?

By: IHateYuppies

IHateYuppies — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:32:19 +0000

I bet that building looked cool in 1970. In 2008…not so much. Break out the wrecking ball.

Historical preservation groups offer valuable education to the community about the significance of buildings. However, these historical societies can be a real impediment to community revitalization and economic development.

By: Springvale Roader

Springvale Roader — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:12:08 +0000

It’s an ugly box. Tear it down.

I agree with the sentiments of those who want to preserve truly historical and/or beautiful buildings, but ugly is ugly, and this utilitarian building does nothing to enhance the environment. Begone!

By: Give me a break

Give me a break — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:38 +0000

Tear it down

Editor's note: Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. ;-) -- JD (Jan 15, 2008)

By: paul_silver_spring

paul_silver_spring — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:45:38 +0000

DMZ – agreed. I think there is little to nothing of architectural interest, uniqueness or significance to that building. To quote the article – “suburban baby boom modernism”… which was incidently the most disgusting period of architectural history, almost, but not even topped by the recent wrath of “clusters ‘o identical mansions”. Hundreds of thousands upon thousands of soldiers needed housing and they needed it really quick. That where the vast suburban developments of near windowless brick houses that cluster PG county and the more unfortunate neighborhoods of MoCo came from. And with it came a general architectural style of simple, utilitarian and just flat out uninteresting. The suntrust building has no architectural detail at all. To quote an old teacher talking about my 1960’s high school – it as itneresting as a cereal box turned on it’s side.

By: DMZ

DMZ — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:29:14 +0000

It’s not the world’s most horrifically ugly building, which seems to be the main preservationist criteria sometimes, but I really don’t get why it’s historic, either. Our doctors (Cameron Medial Group) are in there, and I never noticed anything particularly amazing inside.

I’m all for preserving buildings with significant national or local historical significance, but there’s no way you could convince me that some random S&L meets one of those criterion.