RECENT COMMENTS
ArchitectureRichmond: Dave Johannas interview
ArchitectureRichmond has a neat interview with architect Dave Johannas:
You’re also a member of the Commission of Architectural Review (CAR). Can you speak to the importance of this organization and the success of its mission?
The CAR has been around for at least 50 years, and currently oversees about 6,000 properties in the city. The mission has grown and the level of professionalism has gotten more and more focused. It is a relatively sophisticated commission. Without the CAR, without the doctrine of old and historic districts, we would have lost a lot of our heritage and our urban fabric. It takes that type of organization to keep that essential fabric, which is what gives our city its character and culture.
And you don’t see modern architecture as at odds with an historic architectural culture?
Yes I do, no I don’t. You always have to deal with that conflict. At what point is it damaging? How far do you extend into modernity? At what point are you being too historicist? Our commission supports a lot of historicist detailing; good or bad, it will be supported politically. Very seldom do people have the energy, time or client to create modern architecture. The balancing point in neighborhoods can be so delicate, how far do you go or not go?
Cue Alex going CRAZY….
Here is a great example of how far NOT to go:
/2012/08/02/new-construction-on-broad-street_23489/
Nice. And the new construction on Broad Street is a good addition to the neighborhood.
I’m actually not even going to touch this beyond mentioning that the picture above speaks a thousand words about Johannas’s respect for historical integrity. Johannas and the rest of the committee have one set of rules for the little people, another for themselves and neither are written down anywhere.
And I will add that I do like some of his designs quite a bit. In the right setting, some of his stuff looks pretty cool and appropriate. It’s just not appropriate here.
My biggest beef has been that it’s a massive conflict of interest to have any architect practicing in a district that he regulates, let alone one who openly admits that he likes to write the rules as he goes and push on boundaries.
That building above is one of my favorite new/old buildings in the city.
The building above is a great example of blending new with old. I love it.
I wish I could say the same for the new construction on Broad Street as you enter Church Hill.
I agree with 6 & 7 – this is one of my favorite new buildings in the neighborhood. They did a fantastic job!
I agree with Alex that it’s not bad in the proper setting,but that setting isn’t a historic district.That said,there is nothing that deserves the attention of an Architectural magazine – after all, we just built a whole city of postmodern architecture in Short Pump.Could the reason Johannas violated numerous CAR guidelines be that his designs wouldn’t get a second glance if they were placed in appropriate settings?
This is a terrific example of infill. I would love to have something this nice in my neighborhood. It fits nicely with the buildings on both sides of 25th. I know there are people who think this was a rehab project but it is all new – replaced an overgrown gravel abandoned lot. An aside – what CAR guidelines were violated? Seems to fit the criteria to me, certainly conforms with massing, materials, meeting the street, etc.
@10- which building are you referring to? Reserve 25 has exposed cinderblock visible from the street on the Main Street side and are shiny metal panels really a CAR approved material? Vinyl windows are ok when they are on a new house but not for an older house?
Or are you talking about the house on Broad that hulks over its neighbors? That one is the very epitome of bad massing.
Maybe you’re right in that they meet CAR guidelines but only because Johannas and his pals have made sure that CAR guidelines are such a mess they can be interpreted however they want.
Architecture like this example belongs in a more suburb surrounding, not “within” any historic protected area. There is a reason for buildings being part of a O&H or National Registry and that is to protect its “original” state, not modernize the exterior. And from what I have gathered, read, and seen… there is NO balancing involve as it seems the CAR has fallen down on the job and allowed such travesties. Nor should there be any balancing in the first place. Take a cue from other historic cities.