HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Property Address:
Landmark/District:
Meeting Date:
H.P.A. Number:
Staff Reviewer:
3211 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
3118 Quebec Place, NW
Cleveland Park Historic District
March 26, 2009
08-156
Steve Callcott
X Agenda
Consent Calendar
X Concept Review
Alteration
New Construction
X Relocation
X Subdivision
Owner Mark Kaufman of Hastings Development, represented by Ralph Cunningham of
Cunningham & Quill Architects, seeks conceptual design review for relocating a two-story
frame house at 3211 Wisconsin Avenue to a lot (proposed for subdivision) at 3118 Quebec
Place, NW.
Property Description and History
Constructed in 1905, 3211 Wisconsin Avenue is a two-story frame house with a brick
foundation, two-over-two wood windows and a cross-gabled shingle roof. Its walls were
originally clad in wood clapboard siding over which green cement or asbestos shingles have
been applied. The house was built by Donald MacLeod, a Treasury Department
bookkeeper, for his sister Euphemia, a DC school teacher. While Donald is listed on the
permit as the architect and builder, it is likely that he obtained the plans from a builder’s
manual or pattern book. The house was purchased in the 1930s by Etzio Nannini, a house
builder active in Cleveland Park and Takoma Park. His son Enzo, an attorney for the Army
Corps of Engineers, inherited the house and lived there until his death in 2003. The
house’s owners and inhabitants are reflective of the white-collar, middle-class residents that
typified Cleveland Park in the 20th century.
3211 was built in response to the construction of a streetcar line along Wisconsin Avenue
which began operation in 1890 and opened rural Washington County to speculative
suburban development. In that same year, Thomas Fisher & Company platted the nineblock “Oak View” subdivision on land formerly part of the summer estate of President
Grover Cleveland. The subdivision included portions of the 3400, 3500 and 3600 blocks of
Woodley Road, Newark, Macomb and Lowell streets, including two blocks along
Wisconsin. Initial development was slow to take off; when 3211 was constructed in 1905 it
was one of only a few in the Oak View subdivision.1 By the 1920s, Cleveland Park was
well established and flourishing; Wisconsin Avenue had been developed with other
detached houses, row houses, small-scale apartment buildings, and one-story commercial
buildings. The University Apartments (immediately north of 3211) was constructed in
1
The first houses, constructed in 1897-8, were clustered at the intersection of 36th and Macomb; the fourth
corner was occupied by the former Cleveland residence, which was demolished in 1927.
1925, contemporaneous with the one and two-story apartment buildings and commercial
buildings across the street. While reflecting a variety of building types and architectural
styles, these buildings share a commonality of size and scale with 3211. More dramatic
change came after the Second World War, when this portion of the street was rezoned for
90’ apartment buildings. 3201 Wisconsin Avenue, immediately to the south, was
constructed in 1957; 3217 Wisconsin to the north was constructed just prior to the
designation of the Cleveland Park Historic District.
Based on its date of construction, architectural character and association with the Oak View
subdivision, 3211 was included in the boundaries of the Cleveland Park Historic District
when it was designated in 1986, and is listed as a contributing structure in the National
Register nomination. While in need of substantial repair and maintenance, and missing its
original front and rear porches, the house appears generally sound and retains integrity of
form, materials and architectural character.
Proposal
The applicants seek to move the house at 3211 Wisconsin Avenue to a newly created lot at
3118 Quebec Place. The new lot would be created out of the rear portion of the lot
occupied by a 1932 two-story brick house at 3041 Porter Street. 3211 would be placed on a
new brick foundation, restored, and returned to single family use; the existing driveway
accessed from Quebec would be retained for access to both houses. The Wisconsin Avenue
site would likely be redeveloped with an apartment building, however, no proposal for
redevelopment is being put forward at this time. Any construction on that site would be
subject to review for compatibility with the Cleveland Park Historic District.
Evaluation
Relocating an historic building from its original site is obviously not standard preservation
practice. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
discourage relocating buildings, as it severs the relationship between the building, site, and
context and potentially jeopardizes the building during the process of relocation.2
Generally, moving an historic building should be considered only as a last resort to
demolition. Examples of historic buildings relocated to prevent their demolition are
numerous; locally, these include Frank Lloyd Wright’s Pope-Leighey House, the Lindens at
2401 Kalorama Road, Adas Israel Synagogue, and the Lenthall Houses in Foggy Bottom.
The applicant’s proposal falls into a different category, where a building is proposed for
relocation based on the argument that the property’s context has been compromised by
change or encroachments that significantly diminish the integrity of its setting. This sort of
relocation was not uncommon for frame buildings in rapidly expanding cities in the 18th
and 19th centuries, and remains a practice most often seen today in rural areas where
2
The National Register criteria consideration for judging the listing eligibility for relocated properties is
attached; these criteria are primarily oriented to individually listed properties rather than contributing
resources within a historic district. For properties significant primarily for their architectural value, as
would apply to 3211 Wisconsin, the Register has concluded that moved properties can remain eligible for
National Register listing.
historic houses are moved further back from increasingly busy roads. However, this type of
proposal is somewhat more difficult and subjective to evaluate than the imminent threat of
demolition raising the questions of: at what point is the setting for a property sufficiently
compromised that it justifies being relocated, and when is it reasonable to allow an historic
building to be moved?
A recent project in Takoma Park has some similarities to the current proposal. In 2006, the
HPRB approved the relocation of three houses (6924 and 6926 Willow Street, and 6949
Maple Street, NW) after concluding that they were “isolated and visually unconnected to
the historic district,” were not individually significant or distinguished from other
bungalows in the district, and did not gain particular significance from their location on
these particular lots. Rather, they were found to be typical contributing structures which
added to the cumulative whole of the district. In their new locations, the buildings would
remain on the same block within the historic district and be fully restored.
While 3211 is similarly isolated and visually unconnected to the historic district, and its lot
has no significant character-defining features, it would be relocated several blocks away to
a different part of the district. The site is located outside of the Oak View subdivision and
well off the avenue on which the house was originally constructed. Historic maps show
that Quebec Place was platted and improved in 1907, contemporaneous with 3211’s
construction; however, it was not substantially developed until the 1930s. The immediately
surrounding houses include 3041 Porter (1932), a pair of brick and stucco Tudor Revivals
at 3110-3114 Quebec (1932), four Colonial Revivals at 3113-3125 Quebec (1938-1941),
and a trio of Neoclassical townhouses at 3045-49 Porter (1923). To the west, where the
street serves as the rear of the properties on Porter, it is lined with garages and rear yard
fences. The context is a mixture of architecturally modest houses and secondary buildings,
without the strong sense of place and history associated with many areas of the Cleveland
Park Historic District.
While the new location would remove the house from the Oak View subdivision and
Wisconsin Avenue, it is certainly less jarringly disparate than its existing location, and
would provide a more visually compatible context of similarly sized and scaled single
family houses. The immediate site includes a rustic stone wall retaining a hillside on which
the house would sit. Adjustments to the siting of the house have been made to roughly
align it with the houses immediately to the west, so that it would have a similar, but not
identical, setback from Quebec Place as the surrounding houses. In size, scale and general
alignment, the house would sit comfortably in its new location.
Surrounded by large apartment buildings, facing a busy road, and requiring a significant
investment in order to be made livable, there is little assurance that the property would
receive the extensive rehabilitation it requires or returned to its original single family use in
its existing location. Sitting far back on its site, with no room for a rear addition, the
building also doesn’t easily lend itself to alterative uses, such as conversion to apartments
or commercial use. While being minimally maintained, it is deteriorating and vacant,
raising the likelihood that it could be significantly damaged or lost to vandalism or fire.
While conceivable that the house might be restored and/or repurposed in its existing
location, it would nevertheless remain isolated from similar resources.
The HPO believes the proposal is supportable as consistent with the purposes of the
preservation act and perhaps the best solution for ensuring the property’s long term
retention, restoration and reuse. The relocation would provide substantial preservation
benefits: it would retain the house within the historic district to which it contributes,
provide a setting that is more compatible in terms of the scale, size and use than the present
location, result in a much-needed, high-quality rehabilitation of the house, and would return
the property to its original use as a single family house.
The Historic Preservation Office recommends that the Review Board approve the proposed
relocation and subdivision in concept, contingent on the development of a relocation plan
that ensures the building’s integrity during the move and results in a full and complete
rehabilitation of the property in its new location.