Another Vienna Landmark Bites the Dust

No historic preservation? Of course not, they only do that when it is convenient for them. *** holes.

I love how there is no mention of any historical significance to the building. This is one of the few left in town - oh, well.

They get all pissy about people's personal residences in NW Vienna but not about ripping down all of Church Street.

Eleven parking spaces for a three story commercial building? Individual residences in Vienna need six parking spaces. They didn't learn anything from their folly at Southern States.

Paul Layer as a member of Vienna government has long pushed historic crap on other people, but the moment someone stuffs a wad of $100 bills in his pie trap, he sure as hell rolls over and let's his tummy get tickled and the end result is a Vienna land mark leveled. Hypocrite. Dishonest.

I'm excited about this new building. There doesn't appear to be much historical left in use or appearance from the existing building to begin with and the new building is a very nice design. Church Street used to be the main street through Vienna, and I think it's nice that it continues to be a vibrant commercial street. It's about the only area where developers are proposing new buildings in town. I wish they could fit more parking, but eleven appears to be more than what is there now. I don't know any residential house that has six parking spaces, much less required to have that many. The town is talking about increasing the parking requirements on-site or paying an amount to provide parking elsewhere for all new proposals on Church Street so hopefully this will help the parking situation there.

Smart Growth Advocate no one really has a problem with the building, people have a problem with the corrupt and hypocritical way these people run the government when it comes to the word "historic"...to their own financial benefit. Layer has worked diligently to support historic district crap as long as it doesn't affect his wallet. That's the problem. Sure, the new building will be better, we just need to all have one big agreement that historic everything in Vienna is a ****ing sham and always has been. The word historic should be be removed from every code in the Town and especially every street sign that so proudly yells "Historic Church Street", that as we all know is complete BS.

I agree with the 'selective historic tag' criticisms.

But as Smart Growth Advocate says, this is a nice building and an improvement over what is there.

When the town is in the right, it's important to note that. I thought folks here *wanted* redevelopment, or are knees jerking uncontrollably here?

The town (and the 'Historic Windover' crowd) is in the right here. They are very much in the wrong on things like putting sidewalks on Lewis St.

In the interest of privacy I will not list addresses where either six parking spaces are provided or those that should. I can say that all houses built on roads without curbs have cars parked on the roadway. Some even have space on the property but do not use it because of the difficulty of moving cars about. Obviously the development of Church Street is in order but what is with the red brick and the industrial look. If the town would really let the talented architects come into town we might get some of the imaginative designs we see in other places. I know of no one on the town boards who qualify to design features that we see in other towns and cities.

My one complaint about the building is that the driveway opening seems weirdly oversized. But "PL's Wallet" is right about how the town has invented this fake historic district. They seem to think that new buildings designed in a style with vaguely historic references qualify as "historic."

Whether or not I find the building attractive is besides the point. The Town is encouraging every single building on Church Street to be demolished and a new (and completely different style) building to be rebuilt.

WHY THE F&^K DOES ANYONE CALL IT "HISTORIC CHURCH STREET." THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS. It was known as just Church Street my entire life until they decided to demo it - now it is historic.

When the town is in the right, it's important to note that.

What are they right about? In an entire Town they allow one building in, completely make a sham of the word 'historic' and now you want to serve Maud lunch?

Church Street is not dying to be developed nearly as much as the one mile long stretch of hideous Maple Avenue. The focus is completely OUT OF WHACK, people.

Ann, I'll bet that the driveway opening is not what the architect wanted but the result of town board members meddling with the design.

But "Sickened" isn't the owner of my wallet, Paul Layer, on that very board? Layer went before himself for approval?

There were two foxes in the henhouse. However, note that they must swear allegiance to town principals. The selections are conducted in closed sessions, why?

I'm curious -- does anyone know if the construction company Councilman Dan Dellinger works for has contracts with the Town of Vienna? Or if his employer has benefitted in the past from private construction that the Town approved?

I agree with "sickened":If the town would really let the talented architects come into town we might get some of the imaginative designs we see in other places.

Supposedly there was a "church street vision", but I guess that didn't include any sense of uniformity for the street. If I hear one more time "well it's better than what we had" I will scream. Now we are just building because this is the only place in Vienna that is "anointed" to prosper. Of course all those shops are a welcome change to Vienna, but to use that argument is short cited. There is NO thought of how it looks or comes together.

We are going to have one building that has a "graffiti wall", and another that looks like a "Mickey's big mouth."

I think Church Street demonstrates why we need "professional" developers (those who have done this before) to take on the projects of this Town, and to provide a clear vision.

But until we elect a real Mayor and new TC members we will continue to have a mish mash of mediocrity.

Well I see we have Bukont 2; Layer 2 on Church Street.

Which one will get the next one?

Really had either one of them done anything of this scale before? Or is the Town just letting them practice their resume on us?

I'm very much for the Maple Avenue redevelopment, but this Church Street overlay zone is already in place and I don't see why it shouldn't be implemented. If anything Church Street development should help spur Maple Avenue development. If this building had enough historical significance, why didn't this come out during the overlay zoning planning process to protect it?

And I prefer the buildings to look a little different than each other. Some of these redeveloped areas look so monotonous because they are all the exact same architecture. All of the new projects on Church Street have a relatively traditional architecture look and to me blend together nicely with a little variety. I agree about the garage entrance being too tall, but regardless it's still a relatively nice building.

That’s the Vienna Town Council mentality… tear-down lil-ol Curly’s (nothing historic about that building) and put-up a three story brick building with no parking. (you think that you can’t make a turn off Church onto Lawyers now, just wait until it’s a parking lot) While at the same time, they (VTC) bury their heads in the sand about all the boarded-up/vacant buildings on the main drag through town.

If this building had enough historical significance, why didn't this come out during the overlay zoning planning process to protect it?

Maud and crew all know the history but they choose to ignore. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. They know and do nothing about preservation. They just want to use "historic preservation" to harass/bully people at their whim (seriously, have none of you figured this out yet?) Historic Vienna, Inc. should be disbanded immediately and their sham of a district should be abolished.

From Wesley's website - I think this information would make the structure one of the more important ones in Town - if not the last one left standing:

On March 12, 1890, Orrin E. Hine and his wife, Alma D. Hine, donated land on Church Street in Vienna to the trustees of the Vienna Methodist Episcopal Church. Orrin Hine was a leading citizen of the Vienna area promoting public education and improving the streets of the town. He was responsible for the planting of maple trees along six miles of Vienna’s roads, including Maple Avenue. He also served as Vienna’s first mayor from 1890 to 1900.

The original building on Church Street consisted of the sanctuary area and a small room behind the chancel area which was used for Sunday School instruction. The church was part of the Vienna-Oakton Circuit, consisting of three churches: Wesley, Oakton, and Wiehle Church (which is no longer in existence). In 1950, Wesley became a separate appointment. In 1954, plans for a new building on the corner of Spring Street and Moore Avenue were completed, and the first services were held in the new building on September 16, 1956. The present sanctuary was completed on November 10, 1963.

Perhaps there should have been more discussion at the time of the church street C1-B re-zoning to save the more historic structures such as this former church along Church Street. The discussion though should have been done during the writing and approval of the C1-B zoning. At this time, I can't fault the owner for not wanting to redevelop their property or the town for not approving the plan per what the C1-B zone allows on this site.

I know there is a lot of criticism of the way Layer and Bukont get their buildings approved and I agree that the process is corrupt. But their buildings on Church do follow the guidelines of the visioning and we should give them credit for decent architecture on small, difficult sites that most developers would not bother with. As for parking, most of us want this district to have the character of a new urbanist town, and that means street parking, and parking behind and under buildings. We complain when vast seas of asphalt take over retail districts, but on Church St, where it's actually being done pretty well, we complain about that too. Yes, I sometimes have to park a block from where I'm headed, but that's how urban retail districts work. It's also how small towns used to work before we got used to suburban-style development where every building is surrounded by acres of parking.

Some people think we need desigh uniformity, but look at some of your favorite places. Georgetown, Leesburg, and other historic towns are made up of a wide variety of styles, colors and materials. Businesses are allowed to have signs without being regulated to death. The key is that the scale of the buildings is fairly uniform and they are set close to the sidewalk. I think we're seeing this on Church Street and eventually, when the street is completed, it will be quite nice. The biggest mistake is that the town is refusing to use a similar set of guidelines on Maple Ave.

Fair comments Anne, but 4 new buildings on Church Street in 12 years since inception of special district. We are all going to be Maud's age by the time it is done. In that sense, time wise, Church Street has failed. Are the 4 buildings nice? Sure. But 12-15 years to get them? If the dang Church Street system was so great - would there have not been a bum rush to build? Then we could all enjoy the buildings before we are gumming for long lost teeth while patrolling those lovely sidewalks on motorized scooters ala Seinfeld.

Fair,

It does seem like we could get a bit more development here, especially when looking at how many proposals places like Falls Church are still getting. The Northgate project below is a 4-5 story apartment, townhouse, and commercial project with some affordable initiatives as well.

http://dcmud.blogspot.com/search/label/Falls%20Church

Fair,
I totally agree with you, and I have made numerous similar comments in the past. The town squandered the economic boom that brought so much new development to other jurisdictions and they were actually proud of their efforts to keep development away. I don't know what century they live in, but it's not this one.

I, too, want to scream when I hear the defense that at least something is better than was there before. (The epitome was the post on this site that the Town Green was better than Brooke Rental.) We should have loftier expectations. That being said, the first Bukont building is fine but the second clearly has some issues. The first Layer building is banal. I hope that the second one turns out better.

The pedestrian-friendliness of Church St. and Maple St. is a more fundamental issue. The combination of narrow sidewalks and buildings butting up against the sidewalks is a safety hazard. Many motorists who are pulling out from behind buildings pull onto the sidewalk before stopping. (That is, they do not come to a stop before the front bumper reaches the sidewalk.) Those of us who regularly walk along those streets know that danger all too well. With so many of these blind alleys, this problem is not going away. It is no wonder that so few people walk those streets.

Walker, there are plenty of walkers in Vienna. Me and my homies are walking everywhere in case you have not noticed.

Smart Growth Advocate sounds like a shill for the town government, or a member of same. Trying to cover tracks for another failed decision.

Discusted,

I am not part of the town government. All I was pointing out is that their decision was in line with the current zoning, and yes I do support this pedestrian friendly zoning district. What exactly are you against? The building, the church street CB-1 zoning? Why don't you point out what your actual issue is rather than just saying that everything the town does is bad without any supporting explanation. I'm for the church street re-development as much as I'm for maple avenue re-development. Yes, I wish some things could be better - it would be nice if all the new buildings on Church could have at least 6' sidewalks instead of 5', all have first floor entries right off the street without steps or ramps, and have more parking, but overall I think the buildings are improving the Town of Vienna. To me, this is being consistent with wanting a more pedestrian friendly and vibrant downtown whether or not the town is or is not in support.

I'm with you, Smart Growth.