Posts from February 2008

Ramon Estrada of the ANC was most vehement in his opposition to the project's size, asking for five stories in the south and seven in the north. But he was the only voice strongly pushing for a reduction; the HPRB staff and board agreed that the project as conceived, about the same height as the storage building in the north and an apartment building on T Street in the south, is generally in keeping with the neighborhood. The preservation groups who testified also offered little objection. Chairman Tersh Boasberg pointed out that the board's "touchstone" is the zoning, which allows for a building of that height. The board can ensure the building is "compatible" with the existing historic district, and the consensus was that it achieved compatibility.

The meeting also achieved an entertaining debate about "balance" or "symmetry" between the two northern towers. The staff report praised the "symmetry" of the southern end and recommended greater "balance" if not actual duplication between the two taller northern towers. But then, Patrick Burkhart of the DC Preservation League actually suggested less symmetry, perhaps a one-story height difference between the two. Anne Lewis came down generally in favor of asymmetry, Calcott clarified that he was asking for "balance" rather than "symmetry," and everyone had a good laugh about the debate over an issue that in the end is fairly minor.

Finally, the board clearly expressed their disinterest in debating the issue of the curb cut on 14th, which they don't approve of. Cheryl Cort testified on behalf of the Cardozo-Shaw Neighborhood Association as opposing any parking entrance on 14th Street, while Phyllis Klein, who lives in the alley behind the site, pleaded again to move the parking entrance so that only loading would take place in the alley. Cort argued that removing the Dominos pizza delivery as planned would significantly improve alley traffic.

The curb cut question is in the hands of DDOT now and a traffic study; as I've said, I think that the best way to mitigate this concern is by reducing the parking. With less parking, there is less traffic, meaning the alley impact might be reduced if the garage entrance goes in the back. If Klein and others succeed in their efforts to move it to the front, the garage entrance will still harm the street-level appearance and feel of the block, but less parking would at least reduce the pedestrian-vehicle conflicts that result.

Ultimately, the most important issue is that this project should get built. However historically compatible the building will be—and more is better—the ugly fast-food buildings, check cashing, and car dealership are a blight on the otherwise vibrant area. We should build this to bring more retail and residents to a very transit-accessible area, and ensure that the parking lot doesn't remain so long that it itself would become historic.

Especially in areas where denser commercial development adjoins lower-density residential (which is a lot of the city), the current residential parking rules don't ensure spaces are available for residents, because anyone can park for two hours for free during the day and as long as they want at night. On the other hand, imagine that (to go to an extreme) all streets were restricted to residents of the nearby few blocks only. In that case, there'd be no need to force a commercial developer to build parking. If they want their shoppers to have a place to park, they can pay to build it. If they think shoppers will arrive by Metro, they won't. They'll determine a mix that's probably lower than what we have today.

We're not going to prohibit anyone but residents from parking on residential streets, but I believe we can do almost as well with parking demand management. With a combination of stricter limits and charging nonresidents for parking on the street, like that proposed for the ballpark and Columbia Heights, people who are visiting an area can make a simple choice: drive, and pay a market rate to park, or don't drive. The market rate will ensure some availability, so residents can get spaces. In that case, even the staunchest advocates of more parking at the zoning review agreed that there would no longer be a need for parking minimums.

How about parking maximums? There was surprising consensus here too, at least in some areas. Where a zone is defined as "transit-oriented," however that is exactly determined (which future zoning review working groups and DC agencies will decide), everyone agreed to take the "aggressive" approach, of setting some maximum for the amount of parking that can be built, and utilizing other tools like shared parking, in-lieu fees, unbundling, and more.

We also agreed about utilizing some of these other tools along with a dual parking minimum and maximum in non-transit-oriented mixed-use areas. These areas tend to be more car-oriented, but also walkable, so a balance is important. The consultants suggested an approach similar to what Arlington uses on Columbia Pike (currently served only by buses): a minimum, but one that can be served by shared parking, and a maximum on reserved parking. Reserved parking is parking dedicated only to a single business; Shared parking, as the name suggests, allows customers from multiple businesses to use the same parking. By pushing shared parking and capping reserved parking, you avoid situations like that I often encountered on El Camino in Palo Alto, where a restaurant's lot would be jammed to capacity while the nearby liquor store's was nearly empty, filled with signs forbidding anyone but that store's customers from parking there.

According to our current zoning, if the typical townhouse burned down tomorrow, it would have to be rebuilt with more space for parking, even in dense areas. The land under my building, with about 12 units, is probably not even big enough for the parking lot that the zoning code would demand. Our zoning requirements, mostly dating from the 1950s, assume most people will drive, and force new buildings to contain large parking lots, which makes driving cheaper compared to transit and spreads out the development, encouraging more driving.

The average American family spends 19% of their income on transportation—getting to and from work, school, friends, and activities. Out in the most auto-dependent exurban regions, this jumps to a whopping 25%. But in transit-oriented areas, transportation is only 9% of the total pie, leaving up to 14% more money—tens of thousands of dollars a year per family—for other needs.

The parking zoning review working group saw this information and more from Nelson\Nygaard at the kickoff meeting a week ago. Rob Goodspeed wrote a great article on it as well. What turned out to be the key question for the group was this slide: "If spillover effects can be prevented by other means, minimums become unnecessary." Can they? On this, not everyone agrees. I'll go into more detail in the next post.

Freeways, skybridges follow a similar principle: we should separate uses. "Put the people with the people. Put the business with the business. Put the industry with the industry." Separate the cars from the people so the cars can go fast and the people stay safe. But as we now know thanks to Jane Jacobs and others, separation is dangerous. Separation means there are fewer "eyes on the street" in any one place. Pedestrian overpasses in Minneapolis make the sidewalks more dangerous. Overpasses themselves can be dangerous, keeping people enclosed in a small space that may be empty much of the day and an appealing spot for crime.

Skybridges also foster less public investment in the street. After all, if people are supposed to cross upstairs, we don't need those crosswalks any more. Maybe we can get rid of this light. How about an extra turn lane in front of this new complex? Wouldn't traffic move better with a flyover ramp in addition to the walkway? And before you know it, the street that was formerly a suburban arterial has practically turned into a freeway—the exact opposite of the boulevard citizens want. Once you take away pedestrians, there's no reason to engineer what remains for pedestrians, and the cycle of auto dependency gets deeper.

That's particularly bad because people often don't use skybridges even when they are there. Pedestrians generally don't want to climb two flights of stairs on each end just to cross a street; they will take the shortest path. When leaving the meeting, I crossed the Pike at Bouic Avenue, where there is no crosswalk, instead of trekking a whole (long) block north, out of my way, to Halpine Road which is farther from the Metro. After all, I only had to cross three lanes, then wait at the island, and cross three more.

A 1960s city planner would say that means we need a fence to keep pedestrians off the street. A 21st century city planner would say that means we need a crosswalk, a traffic light, and a better pedestrian refuge in the median. People will walk across the street whether there are elevated walkways or not. The best thing we can do is design the street for it, balancing the pedestrians with the traffic so neither is unduly inconvenienced.

Right now, Salt Lake City is grappling with a proposed skybridge across Main Street. Denver's are almost completely deserted and many are neglected. Des Moines' Skywalk has caused 60 percent ground-floor retail vacancy rates. As Rockville tries to make its Pike into a low-density urban environment, similar to the density of some of the mid-size Midwestern and Mountain West cities, it should turn away from GM's 1939 vision and toward true new horizons without skybridges.