HPA No. 1979-138, 1979-310 (In re. Old Masonic Temple)
Files in this item
| dc.creator | Government of the District of Columbia. Department of Housing and Community Development | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-04-27T17:00:27Z | en |
| dc.date.available | 2015-04-27T17:00:27Z | en |
| dc.date.created | 1979 | en |
| dc.date.issued | 1979 | en |
| dc.identifier | 1979-138 | en |
| dc.identifier | 1979-310 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10822/713123 | en |
| dc.description | [MD] *HPA Number: 1979-138 *Case Name: Application to Raze 901 F Street, N.W., Lot 800, Square 376 *Location of Property: 901 F Street, N.W., Square 376, Lot 800 *Date of Decision: March 2, 1979 *Type of Permit Sought: Demolition *Disposition: Issuance of demolition permit delayed for 180 days *Date of Case Summary: June 14, 2007 *Additional Information about the building: http://perma.cc/M2ZC-NMV5 *Summary of Decision:* The Aaron Strauss & Lillie Strauss Foundation, Inc. (the "Applicant") submitted an application for a permit to raze the Old Masonic Temple, commonly known as the Julius Lansburgh Furniture Store (the "Lansburgh"), located on 901 F Street, N.W., Lot 800, Square 376. The building was designed in a modified French Renaissance style by internationally prominent Washington, D.C. architects Adolph Cluss and Joseph Wildrich von Kammerhueber. The Lansburgh was located across the street from the Old U.S. Patent Office. The Lansburgh was constructed by the Grand Lodge of Masons and was considered a symbol of the significant role that the Grand Lodge of Masons played in Washington, D.C. since 1795. It was listed in both the city's inventory of historic sites and the National Register of Historic Places. The Joint Committee on Landmarks concluded that the demolition should be delayed for one hundred and eighty (180) days finding that the demolition would be contrary to the public interest because the Lansburgh was (1) a fraternal-commercial building of "rare architectural merit"; (2) located across from the Old U.S. Patent Office and complimented the "scale and dignity" of the neighborhood; and (3) a "symbol of the awakening civic consciousness" in Washington, D.C. and the important role that the Grand Lodge of Masons played in the construction of Washington, D.C. Note that this case was brought before the DC Landmark and Historic District Protection Act was passed in 1978. The Delay in Demolition provision was enacted in 1964. The Joint Committee of Landmarks was composed of members of the Fine Arts Commission and the National Capitol Planning Commission. See the full discussion in: Dutra, Jeremy W., "You Can't Tear it Down: the Origins of the D.C. Historic Preservation Act" (2002). Georgetown Law Historic Preservation Papers Series. Paper 1 at p. 17; available at http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/hpps_papers/1/. *Necessary in the public interest:* The Joint Committee on Landmarks of the National Capital (the "Joint Committee"), Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2C, government agencies and community organizations advised that the demolition of the building should be delayed until there was an opportunity to negotiate with 900 G Street Limited Partnership (the "Owner"), the current owner of the Lansburgh, regarding a way to preserve the building. The Owner expressed a willingness to negotiate with government agencies and community organizations to at least preserve the facades of the building. The Joint Committee concluded that the demolition of the building would be contrary to the public interest and delayed the issuance of a permit to raze the Lansburgh for one hundred and eighty (180) days to allow negotiation between the Owner and public and community organizations regarding ways to preserve the Lansburgh. *Prior and Subsequent History:* This application was also the subject of an application to extend the 120 day period in which the Joint Committee must make a decision as to whether to grant the application to demolish the Lansburgh. See HPA No. 1979-310 (Dec. 21, 1979). *Subsequent History:* See HPA No. 1979-138, 1979-310, orders dated November 13, 1979 and 21 December 21, 1979, and 900 G Street Associates v. Department of Housing and Community Development, 430 A.2d 1387 (D.C. 1981) (affirming the Mayor's Agent's decision and holding that the permit denial did not effect a taking of private property requiring compensation). ----- #Decision Summary HPA No. 1979-310 *HPA Number: 1979-310 *Case Name: Application to Raze 901 F Street, N.W., Lot 800, Square 376 *Building Name: Old Masonic Temple (Julius Lansburgh Furniture Store) *Location of Property: 901 F Street, N.W., Square 376, Lot 800 *Date of Decision: Nov 13, 1979 *Type of Permit Sought: Extension of 120 day period during which Mayor's Agent to make a decision regarding application for demolition permit *Disposition: Granted *Date of Case Summary: June 14, 2007 *Summary of Decision:* The 900 G Street Associates (the "Applicant") submitted an application to raze what was known as the Old Masonic Temple, or more commonly known as the Julius Lansburgh Furniture Store (the "Lansburgh"), located at 901 F Street, N.W., Lot 800, Square 376. At the November 1, 1979 public hearing Don't Tear It Down objected to the submission of Applicant's application on the basis of unreasonable economic hardship because the Applicant had failed to submit the purchase price for the Lansburgh. The Mayor's Agent extended the one hundred and twenty day (120) day period in which the Mayor's Agent must make a decision to allow the Applicant time to submit the purchase price for the 2/5 interest in the 900 G Street property conveyed by YAG Associates to the Applicant. *Prior and Subsequent History:* See HPA No. 1979-138, 1979-310 orders of March 2, 1979 and December 21, 1979, and 900 G Street Associates v. Department of Housing and Community Development, 430 A.2d 1387 (D.C. 1981) for prior and subsequent history. ----- #Decision Summary HPA No. 1979-310 *HPA Number: 1979-310 *Case Name: Application to Raze 901 F Street, N.W., Lot 800, Square 376 *Building Name: Old Masonic Temple (Julius Lansburgh Furniture Store) *Location of Property: 901 F Street, N.W., Lot 800, Square 376 *Date of Decision: December 21, 1979 *Type of Permit Sought: Demolition *Disposition: Denied *Date of Case Summary: November 20, 2014 *Issue Areas: Economic Hardship (Generally) *Summary of Decision:* The 900 G Street Associates (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to raze what was known as the Old Masonic Temple, or more commonly known as the Julius Lansburgh Furniture Store (the “Lansburgh”), located at 901 F Street, N.W., Lot 800, Square 376. The Lansburgh was listed in the District of Columbia’s Inventory of Historic Sites and in the National Register of Historic Places. The Applicant performed an exchange of property with the Young Women’s Christian Association (the “YWCA”) whereby the YWCA transferred title to the Lansburgh (8,059 square feet of property located on the northeast corner of 9th Street and F Street) to the Applicant and the Applicant transferred title to Lot 68 (containing approximately 13,000 square feet of property located on the southwest corner of 9th Street and G Street) to the YWCA. The Applicant retained title to Lot 69, the 13,566.61 square feet lot adjacent to Lot 68; the Applicant had acquired Lot 68 and Lot 69 for a cost of $1,397,882.98. The YWCA’s contract for the Lansburgh provided for a contract price of $935,000; the Applicant took title to this contract right. In addition, the Applicant received $594,000 from the YWCA which was the sum of the $100 per square feet by which Lot 68 exceeded the square footage of the Lansburgh. The Applicant sought a permit to demolish the Lansburgh and close the alley between the Lansburgh and Lot 69. A new alley would be placed between Lot 68, the Lansburgh and Lot 69. The Applicant planned to then construct a modern office structure on the combined lots. The Applicant argued that denial of such a permit would result in unreasonable economic hardship. The Mayor’s Agent found that the Applicant could not “claim unreasonable economic hardship” and denied the application to demolish the Lansburgh. The Mayor’s Agent concluded that the Applicant had failed to prove that (1) it could not have renovated the Lansburgh and realized a reasonable return, (2) it could not have satisfied the minimum District of Columbia Code (the “Code”) requirements and obtained a return from renting, (3) the Lansburgh could not have been sold either alone or in conjunction with Lot 69 for a profit, and (4) the Lansburgh, with Lot 69, could not be developed to the full zoning potential such that the value of the two lots would decrease if the Lansburgh were not demolished. *Unreasonable Economic Hardship:* To determine whether the Applicant would suffer unreasonable economic hardship (i.e., a taking of an owner’s property without just compensation) were the Applicant’s application for a demolition permit denied, the Mayor’s Agent examined the costs that the Applicant incurred in purchasing and maintaining the Lansburgh and Lot 69 and the potential costs of the renovation of the same. According to the Mayor’s Agent, the Applicant’s investment in the Lansburgh could be computed using the out-of-pocket investment, capital amount, tax basis, or alternative investment as purchase price methods. Using the out-of-pocket investment method, the Applicant made a total investment of $2,244,867 in the Lansburgh and Lot 69. Under the capital account method, the Applicant’s equity in the Lansburgh was $805,105, which was the sum of $211,105 (the Applicant’s capital contribution to the purchase and operation of Lot 68) and $594,000 (the cash received from the YWCA). The Applicant made an investment of $935,000 in the Lansburgh using the alternative investment as purchase price method. From the tax basis method, the Applicant could apply a tax basis of $733,466 for Lot 800 and $765,428 for Lot 69. A first class renovation of the Lansburgh to make the building consistent with Code fire and safety regulations could be achieved at a cost of $2,092,407. This renovation would generate rental income of $19 per square foot. The total renovation income would be $713,150. The Applicant would realize a return of 19.2 percent (19.2%) if the property were valued at the highest value possible. The Lansburgh could also be renovated without substantial work to meet Code regulations at a cost of $150,000. The building could then be rented at $5 to $6 a square foot, realizing a rental value of $185,000 to $222,000 annually. The Mayor’s Agent determined that the Applicant would have a return no matter how the investment was calculated. Using the out-of-pocket investment, capital amount, the tax basis, or the alternative investment as purchase price method, the Applicant would obtain a return of between 9.8 percent (9.8%) and 60.9 percent (60.9%). The Mayor’s Agent also noted that the Applicant had not listed the Lansburgh for sale either by itself or with Lot 69. However, the Applicant did receive two offers for the property that it turned down, one to purchase the Lansburgh and Lot 69 for $3,792,000 and the other to purchase just the Lansburgh for $850,000. If the Applicant had accepted the first offer he could have realized a return of 458 percent (458%) and for the second offer, a return of 9.3 percent (9.3%). If the alley was closed between Lot 69 and the Lansburgh, the square footage available for new construction would be the same whether the Lansburgh was demolished or not. If the Lansburgh were retained, the value of Lot 69 would increase by over $500,000, making such Lot more valuable than if the Lansburgh were demolished. The value of the combination of Lot 800 and Lot 69 if the Lansburgh were demolished would then be $3,460,098. The value of the Lansburgh and Lot 69, if the Lansburgh were not demolished, would be $3,613.115. The Mayor’s Agent also found that the developer could reduce his costs with governmental assistance. Such assistance includes federal grant money for historic buildings and property tax relief for individually designated commercial historic properties. The Applicant had not applied for either type of assistance. *Prior and Subsequent History:* For prior and subsequent history, see HPA No. 1979-138, 1979-310 orders dated March 2, 1979 and November 13, 1979, and 900 G Street Associates v. Department of Housing and Community Development, 430 A.2d 1387 (D.C. 1981) (affirming the Mayor’s Agent’s decision and holding that a permit denial did not effect a taking of private property requiring compensation). ----- | en |
| dc.format | 3 pdfs | en |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en |
| dc.source | Economic Hardship (Generally) | en |
| dc.subject | Demolition | en |
| dc.subject | Necessary in the Public Interest | en |
| dc.subject | Economic Hardship (Generally) | en |
| dc.title | HPA No. 1979-138, 1979-310 (In re. Old Masonic Temple) | en |
| dc.type | Record (document) | en |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Mixed-Income Public Housing and Neighborhood Change: An Analysis of the Department of Housing and Urban Development HOPE VI Program and Economic Spillover Effects
(Georgetown University, 2021)Mixed-income public housing was heralded as a potential solution to the problems of previous housing approaches. Between 1992 and 2010, the United States federal government attempted to provide better living conditions and ...
