From a reader:
I get the feeling from the ongoing Corner debate that I’m the only person in Washington who both rather likes the building and believes the church should be able to tear it down if it so desires. The “historic preservationists” have several problems with their position, in addition to the ownership/expense ones you just mentioned. It isn’t an historic building. It a minor building built in the 1970s. Although not the norm, Brutalist buildings are fairly common in DC. Think of half the federal buildings built in the 1950s and later. And it was designed by a minor, relatively unknown architect. What’s to preserve?
That said, saying it’s ugly is no argument. We’re talking DC here, where boring buildings with fake, useless columns abound. If we want to ditch ugly buildings, let’s start with the Rayburn House Office Building.