Apple's first D.C. store facing repeated opposition
The wait for Apple's first retail store in the nation's capital will reportedly drag on, as local preservationists have been unable to see eye-to-eye with the Mac maker on a design for the new shop.
The Cupertino-based company acquired a building in the historic Georgetown district more than a year ago with the intention of demolishing the structure and replacing it with a flashy high-profile Apple store.
Although it's since been cleared to raze the building at 1229 Wisconsin Ave., Apple has been unable to pass its design proposals for the new store through a review process governed by a pair of local preservationist bodies, according to the Georgetown Current [PDF].
The paper reported last week that the Georgetown advisory neighborhood commission rejected the third consecutive proposal from the electronics company at a December 2nd meeting, and that the Old Georgetown Board did the same at its own meeting two days later.
Concern that Apple's design may be too radical for the surrounding neighborhood appears to be the primary issue. Its most recent proposal calls for a glass first story "with a solid-stone upper facade punctuated by a large window shaped like Apple?s logo."
"The board felt that the design turned the building into a billboard," said Tom Luebke, a spokesman for the Old Georgetown Board tasked with approving new building designs for the historic district.
Apple's first design proposal in September of 2007 included an a glass lower story and a second floor that featured punched windows. When that design was rejected, it returned this summer with an all-glass proposal, which was similarly shot down.
"That first time, like every time after, it was a question of scale,? said Luebke, who noted that the board was not keen on the sprawling glass facades. "The board wanted something less autonomous, something that supports the historic district."
Apple must now return to the drawing board and come up with yet another proposal should it wish to proceed with plans for the Wisconsin Ave. shop.
In its struggle to pass a proposal for the Georgetown store, it was recently reported that Apple has failed to pay the $70,162.17 in taxes it owes since purchasing the property. The more than year-long delay has led the city's government to issue two penalties that have now boosted the company's taxes owed to $84,545.42.
The Cupertino-based company acquired a building in the historic Georgetown district more than a year ago with the intention of demolishing the structure and replacing it with a flashy high-profile Apple store.
Although it's since been cleared to raze the building at 1229 Wisconsin Ave., Apple has been unable to pass its design proposals for the new store through a review process governed by a pair of local preservationist bodies, according to the Georgetown Current [PDF].
The paper reported last week that the Georgetown advisory neighborhood commission rejected the third consecutive proposal from the electronics company at a December 2nd meeting, and that the Old Georgetown Board did the same at its own meeting two days later.
Concern that Apple's design may be too radical for the surrounding neighborhood appears to be the primary issue. Its most recent proposal calls for a glass first story "with a solid-stone upper facade punctuated by a large window shaped like Apple?s logo."
"The board felt that the design turned the building into a billboard," said Tom Luebke, a spokesman for the Old Georgetown Board tasked with approving new building designs for the historic district.
Apple's first design proposal in September of 2007 included an a glass lower story and a second floor that featured punched windows. When that design was rejected, it returned this summer with an all-glass proposal, which was similarly shot down.
"That first time, like every time after, it was a question of scale,? said Luebke, who noted that the board was not keen on the sprawling glass facades. "The board wanted something less autonomous, something that supports the historic district."
Apple must now return to the drawing board and come up with yet another proposal should it wish to proceed with plans for the Wisconsin Ave. shop.
In its struggle to pass a proposal for the Georgetown store, it was recently reported that Apple has failed to pay the $70,162.17 in taxes it owes since purchasing the property. The more than year-long delay has led the city's government to issue two penalties that have now boosted the company's taxes owed to $84,545.42.
Comments
Great. I'll be building a trailer park next to your house. I'm sure you won't mind. Sheesh.
This is NOT Apple's first DC-area store, just the first one in DC. The first DC-area store was at Tyson's Corner, which opened in 2001. The others are at Fair Oaks Mall, Pentagon City Mall, Montgomery Mall, Bethesda Row, Columbia Mall, and on Clarendon Blvd in Arlington. The store in DC will be the eighth DC-area store, not the first.
Fair enough.
Kasper
From what I've heard, many years ago the fine folks of Georgetown prevented the metro (subway) from building a station there, and newer residents could not be more pissed that they are denied such a useful/convenient form of mass transit, one that the rest of the damn city enjoys. All because they feared, ahem, shall we say, urban encroachment.
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*
Nah - I'm glad there is a committee to approve this stuff - apple isn't part of their community, they are.
Have you ever been to a developing country? The architecture is usually disgusting. One guy decides he wants to build something from a Sci-fi movie and the guy next door to him decides he wants a Roman temple and then the woman next to them finds a tile manufacturer who has an over supply of some cheap miss-matched tiles and she decides to make that her facade. Meanwhile some other person isn't filling his building, so he decides to turn it into a giant advertising board with a couple hundred 20x40 billboards all over it - each one trying to be brighter and uglier than the one next to it so people will notice.
people who live in these communities have an interest and Apple has a different interest - Apple knew of the local community interest before they bought the place, or else someone is an idiot.
As for the back taxes, it is unfortunate that Apple has not paid. The better leverage is in the $250k+ of sales taxes and ~$2MM in wages per year lost because of the store not moving forward.
Having worked on a few corporate image buildings, it is very difficult to change to accommodate a single locality because it means that every locality will try and pressure change. It dramatically increases the cost, and often lowers the benefit of the project significantly.
It is important for neighborhoods to have influence over the character of the buildings that are built; I don't object to that in the least. I think Apple's ego in the matter might be pushing things too hard on a number of stores, but I understand that the store IS a billboard to them....
Agreed.
Personally, I don't think there's much point in even talking about this though without some kind of pictures or plans being available. Things like this are all about subtleties of form and the specific history of the area. Minimally, they are concerned with what the buildings on either side look like also. None of this is known to us at this point, and despite waiting for that horrible PDF to load, the original newspaper article didn't think it relevant to put pictures in either.
There is no way from the minimal descriptions in the article to know what the proposed building will look like or what the surrounding area is like, so Apple could be completely out on a limb here or the council could be just being jerks. In determining who is right at such an arm's length, it's almost going to be an "insert your prejudice here" kind of discussion, which is hardly worth having.
people who live in these communities have an interest and Apple has a different interest - Apple knew of the local community interest before they bought the place, or else someone is an idiot.
yes Apple probably did know there would be local concerns. But they likely weren't told they would be cock blocked at every turn.
other than the taxes issue, it sounds like they are trying. Frankly I can't believe there's not some way to just sue for the right to do whatever the hell they want so long as it doesn't violate traffic codes, building codes etc.
I mean it's not like they are trying to be a legal crack den. they want the logo on the store so people know that it's an Apple store. especially when it doesn't have the now iconic glass cube appearance.
yes it might have gone over better if they had just remodeled the older building instead of razing it but who knows what the story was with the structure, the wiring etc. perhaps it was so old it would have been way too expensive. but regardless I suspect we aren't getting the whole story here.
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*
Great. I'll be building a trailer park next to your house. I'm sure you won't mind. Sheesh.
With respect, that is a ridiculous argument. Apple's stores are about as simple, elegant, and minimal as you can get. The only branding on the store at all is one simple lighted Apple.
It isn't like Apple is trying to throw up a "Ripley's Believe It or Not" from the Las Vegas strip.
Apple should take out a full page ad in the local paper showing their proposed design and explaining that it was rejected. Then we could get an accurate gauge of public opinion. If most people agreed that it was some kind of eyesore, fine. Apple changes the design more. If the public gives the thumbs up, Apple moves ahead with no further bureaucratic delays.
Seems simple to me.
Nah - I'm glad there is a committee to approve this stuff - apple isn't part of their community, they are.
Have you ever been to a developing country? The architecture is usually disgusting. One guy decides he wants to build something from a Sci-fi movie and the guy next door to him decides he wants a Roman temple and then the woman next to them finds a tile manufacturer who has an over supply of some cheap miss-matched tiles and she decides to make that her facade. Meanwhile some other person isn't filling his building, so he decides to turn it into a giant advertising board with a couple hundred 20x40 billboards all over it - each one trying to be brighter and uglier than the one next to it so people will notice.
people who live in these communities have an interest and Apple has a different interest - Apple knew of the local community interest before they bought the place, or else someone is an idiot.
From an architectural perspective, it is important to understand that a thriving community is not locked in time, and that the neighborhood be allowed to evolve to represent changing styles and realities of society. Personally, I find the homogeneity of many developing countries much worse than the few outlandish buildings you see.
If a building has historical value, or a neighborhood has a historical registration, existing buildings should not be permitted to be demolished.
Check out Google Street Views of the address. I imagine their architectural commentary amounts largely to "add some fake columns to break up the facade."
Frankly I can't believe there's not some way to just sue for the right to do whatever the hell they want so long as it doesn't violate traffic codes, building codes etc.
The historic preservation committee I'm sure has the support of the other land owners in the area who purchased their properties in confidence that their investments would not be jeopardized by someone putting up giant logos, flashing neon lights or similar distracting nuisances. Apple just needs a better architect.
yes Apple probably did know there would be local concerns. But they likely weren't told they would be cock blocked at every turn.
other than the taxes issue, it sounds like they are trying. Frankly I can't believe there's not some way to just sue for the right to do whatever the hell they want so long as it doesn't violate traffic codes, building codes etc.
I mean it's not like they are trying to be a legal crack den. they want the logo on the store so people know that it's an Apple store. especially when it doesn't have the now iconic glass cube appearance.
yes it might have gone over better if they had just remodeled the older building instead of razing it but who knows what the story was with the structure, the wiring etc. perhaps it was so old it would have been way too expensive. but regardless I suspect we aren't getting the whole story here.
If Apple didn't know the nature of the community they're trying to build in, then it's their fault. Are you suggesting that instead of local communities having control over their own community, that the State or the Federal gov't make the rules? Maybe the fed or state gov. should also determine what roads are allowed to go where and how high buildings should be in every city - let's vote in a dictator who controls everything about our lives!
It's a community - THEY decide what their interests are.
I'm not surprised. Georgetown is known for pulling this kind of crap. As someone who lived in DC for nearly 10 years, and walked through Georgetown pretty much every day, I'd have to say this is not Apple being too weird, but Georgetown being uptight. If the new site is where I think it is, there are already plenty of modern shops there like Restoration Hardware, etc., and I find it hard to believe that Apple would come up with a design that wouldn't fit in perfectly with the area. It's just not like them to ignore their surroundings.
From what I've heard, many years ago the fine folks of Georgetown prevented the metro (subway) from building a station there, and newer residents could not be more pissed that they are denied such a useful/convenient form of mass transit, one that the rest of the damn city enjoys. All because they feared, ahem, shall we say, urban encroachment.
I live in a once beautiful small town that has decided to go modern. As a result, everybody drives to visit and shop a few miles away to another beautiful small town that decided to keep, extend and purify its "old town" look. Now our town just looks ugly.
As the article in The Current states, "The brand has had success placing stores in historic and culturally important spots other than Georgetown. Abrief survey of existing storefronts, however, shows that Apple?s proposals for the D.C. site more closely echo newer, suburban Apple stores than, for example, the company?s stores on Regent Street* in London or in SoHo? in New York City.
Those latter stores?facades, however, were historically protected and therefore retained, while the Wisconsin Avenue site will be demolished.
But Apple will somehow have to adjust its design to its surroundings if it wants to proceed, said Luebke. ?So far,? he said, ?there has been very little context of the historic district.?"**, Apple has done it before and I would expect will do it again.
Plus, after reading the entire article in The Current, I side with the decision. Much like when a close family member or friend passes on, we wished that we had stayed in contact more often. Now it is too late.
* http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/regentstreet/
? http://www.apple.com/retail/soho/
** http://www.currentnewspapers.com/adm....%2024%201.pdf
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*
Great. I'll be building a trailer park next to your house. I'm sure you won't mind. Sheesh.
Go ahead...there's no land available around me.
And NO...I do not live in a trailer park!
If Apple didn't know the nature of the community they're trying to build in, then it's their fault.
I agree completely. Local communities always have zoning / building rules. Apple knew the game before they bought the site. Apple has to live by the rules. When you buy property you better know what can and cannot be done.
I'm sure the design is beautiful... just not in that area.
In Freeport (just down the street from L.L. Bean) McDonalds purchased a old farm house, with intent on tearing down ? never happened, but McDonalds is there in a nice looking old farm house with SMALL signs. Other businesses in the area had to do the same thing, that being USE the building that was there, and make it work.
Camden, Rockland Maine is much the same way, and this is a "Nose in the air, my shiet doesn't stick community" and folks make it work.
Apple should ask them what they want, or can live with, and build it. The droves of folks going in and out all day, will more then make up for the lack of signage / logo's. It's that, or just build it somewhere else.
Almost every community in America has some kind of planning board, and in MOST cases folks get by. Some don't any way to many downtown areas look like shiet, and are run down because some folks just won't give in. The people need to speak up ? the planning board will listen, or loose their jobs.
In the area I'm in, they have been talking about putting parking meters EVERYWHERE, and ALL of the area business folks said "Do it, and you'll be forcing us to re-locate, and if we all move, who is it, that will be parking down here, and how much will the city make on empty parking stalls?
It's safe to say, this area of DC doesn't need any new schools, or fire equipment, or tax dollars, and that's good for them. But if they do, and they don't want their property taxes going up, then let the planning board know what you think.
Skip
... Check out Google Street Views of the address. I imagine their architectural commentary amounts largely to "add some fake columns to break up the facade."
On seeing a pic of the actual store and area, I have to say Apple is completely wrong on this one. It's a lovely store and the facade should just be left as is. There is even a large obvious central niche at exactly the right spot to put an Apple logo sign in.
Replacing the store front with a glass sheet (as Apple did in both proposals they have submitted so far), would be an abomination.