To the Editor:
If you have ever suffered through a hearing before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR), whether it be for the Old and Historic District or the Parker Gray District, you may have been surprised at the strange rhetoric used by many of the board members, especially the architects. I call it "arch-o-speak" (short for "architect-speak"). In addition, if you have ever read an introductory paragraph of one of George Will’s newspaper articles, you will instantly recognize this way of presenting information — whereby one needs to assimilate the definitions of several new words before getting to the crux of the matter.
As an example, a friend attended a recent BAR meeting where an architect for one of the city’s developers made the statement that his development had the "rhythm, undulation and modulation that blends with the fabric of Old Town." The first three words would aptly describe a rock concert, a jazz session, or maybe even a smoothie operator's technique, but not an Old Town development — especially one that decidedly does not blend in with the historic fabric of our historic city. Besides giving me goose bumps, I hope someone in the community can translate all that into down-to-earth plain English.
Additionally, what's up with “fenestration?” Can’t the BAR members just say "windows?" This was really highlighted in another outlandish statement used during one of the board’s recent hearings that “Wolfe Street has a clearly established rhythm, and balanced fenestration.” Are we talking about family planning, or streetscapes here? If this was not enough, another board member described a number of developments that might have an "articulated design" or even better yet, "perhaps one in need of more articulation." What does this mean — speech lessons for buildings?
Lastly, at another hearing one of the board members commented that “buildings should be in harmony with their context.” That kind of left me wondering if they weren't referring to the tao of buildings? In my opinion, if one can’t express themselves in an understandable way to the general public, then obviously the clarity of their message gets completely lost in the shuffle. It would certainly be more useful if all our BAR members (especially the architects), spoke in terms that all of us lay persons might understand. However, maybe that is the intent — to obfuscate with architect-speak while trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Townsend A. “Van” Van Fleet
Alexandria