Report a Comment

Far from saying the HPRB process failed here, I believe it was a success. I think all of this criticism, given the complex nature of this case, is unfair. Your complaint that the HPRB spent too much time focusing on height misses one of the most important points of this hearing – it was a concept review. Not a design review – that will come later. With this type of review there is little that the HPRB can really comment on – other than height and massing. Which is precisely what you are criticizing them for doing.

I feel as if there is an underlying theme pitting historic preservation review against height and density - what seems to be your singular criteria for declaring this project a success in complying with the ideology of smart growth. Since when does density and height have to be the most important criteria for qualifying a project as a success? How about how it relates to what is around it? How about what function it serves? How about what materials it is constructed from? How about its overall design and appearance? How about its access to public transportation? How about the number of people it serves? It should be noted that this project is for offices and a church – not for bringing more residents into the downtown core.

It seems that the only outcome you would have been in favor of is a taller building. Why is that the sole measure of success? HPRB really could not satisfy you if you wanted to. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Lets say the HPRB or the staff report never mentioned 90’. Instead, the HPRB would have to evaluate the project based upon surrounding buildings (such as the one immediately next door to the north) and its compatibility with the architecture of the entire historic district (which is its function). They could still reasonably make the conclusion, based upon the building next door facing 16th street that the height, as proposed, was too tall. Had they made this determination, they would be branded as having some elitist aesthetical bias towards smaller buildings. This would position them as being anti-smart growth, and therefore ripe for criticism.

Or, they could have reasonably decided that the height as proposed was fine. But then, as you note with the Hay Adams, should an exception be made, every potential rehabilitation or construction project in the vicinity and in that historic district would try to make the same argument (as the Third Church tried to do). The point of the historic district, at that point, would be essentially lost. I should point out that the Hay Adams was far from a happily accepted project. If I recall, it was a very politically charged debate with many in opposition. Maybe others who were around then could chime in here.

The truth is preservation and zoning are intrinsically linked. Why on earth would the HPRB approve a project that exceeded the height currently permitted by the zoning code? Wouldn’t it be a waste of time if for some reason the variance or PUD were not granted – therefore sending the case back to HPRB? And if you were to flip the process over… why would the zoning board grant a variance or approve a PUD if there had been no historic review knowing that outcome would kick it back to them? There has to be some coordination and cross consideration here – otherwise there is a circular argument with no conclusion.

As for the ANC “great weight,” all I can say is thank goodness “great weight” does not mean they are obligated to “agree.” Can you imagine if in every case in the District of Columbia where the ANC is to be given ‘great weight,” meant the decision makers had to agree with them and rule in their favor? How many development projects in this town would have been completely killed? Their views obviously need to be considered, but they do not have to be last word.

Now… there were some issues that I do think are justified. The staff report was late. That is certainly fair. And the meeting was indeed long. But I also do know that it is extremely difficult to predict how many people are going to want to speak on a particular case – particularly for controversial ones – as you know this was.

Thanks for reading, anyway. I just think there should be more working together and less attacking.

by EH on Jun 8, 2012 11:52 am • link • report