Here’s a typical two-story commercial building in Washington, D.C.:
Like a lot of old urban buildings—including those in small towns—this one has a parapet, a design element that makes it look taller than it is. See how the façade extends above the roofline:
How far above the roofline? Funny you should ask:
I found this building on a website about firefighting, of all things; apparently this sort of thing presents dangers to firefighters. I can’t find anything about this building, including any online property record. But it looks relatively new to me, both the core cinderblock structure and parapet/wall. My guess is a classic two-story, maybe three-story building used to sit there, was torn down, and was replaced with this exaggerated single-story structure to match the look of the rest of the block.
Aerial imagery bears that out. Here’s the block in 1957, with the lot of the current building at the top right:
Here it is in 2002—a vacant lot (and the middle building has also been replaced):
And 2005, when the current building appears:
Neat stuff. Honestly, as fake as that is, it does give the street a nice look—as long as you don’t look too closely!
Related Reading:
Thank you for reading! Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help support this newsletter. You’ll get a weekly subscribers-only post, plus full access to the archive: over 600 posts and growing. And you’ll help ensure more material like this!
A parapet like that requires a stronger roof structure to account for the snow load, and I would guess wind load as well. I’m kind of surprised to see one that tall, but maybe in Washington DC snow loads aren’t a big concern.
I'm always torn about these types of facades. I know they have a long history, but something so exaggerated as faking a second story seems like it could be contrary to "real" place making.
In the absence of the conditions that would lead to the interesting urban element, this case, a two-story corner building, is faux place making (or maybe "performance-enhanced placemaking") better than nothing? Is it better to fake a second story than to make the most interesting one story building that would meet the needs of the tenants?
This is something I really struggle to endorse about New Urbanism, but I don't know that I have a good answer.