Neil Flanagan - Greater Greater Washington

Kennedy Center addition tries to connect with the audience

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:20:00 EDT

The Kennedy Center yesterday unveiled an expansion plan to build 3 new pavilions, including one in the Potomac River, along with pedestrian bridges across Rock Creek Parkway and to the east. The project would partly alleviate some of the Kennedy Center's 1960s urban design errors.

Rendering from Roosevelt Island

It connects the 1.5 million-square-foot arts center to the river, as its designers originally imagined, and as many have proposed since. The addition will principally house the center's extensive music education classes, although it includes rehearsal space and some smaller performing spaces.

Designed by the office of New York architect Steven Holl, the $100 million plan consists of 3 pavilions. Two rest on top of a 3-story plinth, and the other one sits on a floating platform in the Potomac. Bridges will span Rock Creek Parkway to connect the landside and riverside sections, finally connecting the massive balcony of the Kennedy Center to the ground.

Overhead view showing the three pavilions on a low plinth. Image from Steven Holl Architects.

The plinth is the key to the project, allowing the architects to connect the addition to the new building without degrading Edward Durell Stone's marble box. Holl used a similar scheme to add a large addition to the Nelson-Atkins Museum in Kansas City. Blending this plinth into the onramps of the Roosevelt Bridge creates the appearance that it is part of the landscape, with small objects on top of it. The plinth is stepped down on the land side, to let light in to the rehearsal spaces and create privacy amid the highway mess.

Down the ramps, the riverside pavilion will house a stage for small performances. Located right on the Rock Creek multi-use trail, it would break up a loud, boring stretch of the trail. Passers-by might find a show to linger at. Parents could bring kids to music classes by bike, then enjoy time to themselves without getting back into cars. Importantly, it connects the project to the Georgetown waterfront, meaning that a night at the opera might be more pedestrian.

It does not, by any means, eliminate the Kennedy Center's isolation, which comes from the I-66 spur that cuts a deadening trench into Foggy Bottom. However, lightly noted in one of Holl's watercolors is a pedestrian bridge to an unspecified destination. This might be the missing piece that would make the expense worth it.

Such a bridge would make the Kennedy Center accessible by foot from both sides. But it would have to be executed as well as the river-side connectors. If the bridge is not kept busy with activity somehow, like the floating pavilion does, it will not be well-used.

Rafael Viñoly's plan to create a public square was cancelled in 2005. Courtesy Rafael Viñoly Architects.

The plan is considerably more modest than the previous expansion plan by Rafael Viñoly, which would have cost $650 million but patched together the urban fabric on E Street. Although this plan does not preclude that more ambitious project in the future, it fulfills some of aims of that design.

Therefore, this plan also opens the site up to more audacious rethinking of the Center's location in the city. For example, replacing the highway to nowhere with a high-capacity boulevard and filling in blocks recovered from the project would reduce the need for a multi-million dollar deck and expensive structural systems.

This new building looks to positively alter the riverbank, aesthetically and functionally. It is a positive step forward that avoids the pitfalls of a grandiose scheme. However Holl's design evolves, by the intended completion in 2018, could be the first phase of rethinking Foggy Bottom as a more human-scale environment and reconnecting DC's arts center to the rest of the city.

38 comments

Students fix Foggy Bottom's waterfront problems (Jul 28, 2010)
Kennedy Center plaza back on the table? (Jun 13, 2008)
Harvard's Allston plan: wow (Jun 13, 2005)
New York public spaces good and bad (Oct 8, 2006)
1959 alternate Kennedy Center design (Jan 7, 2009)

DDOT may include bikes and pedestrians on Broad Branch

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:10:00 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

The badly deteriorated Broad Branch Road in northwest Washington could become a more complete street that will accommodate pedestrians and cyclists as well as drivers, as part of a much-needed restoration.

Photo from DDOT.

Winding west from Rock Creek to Chevy Chase, the 2-mile-long route does double duty for recreation and commuting. It's necessary link between upper northwest's neighborhoods, Rock Creek Park, and downtown.

Originally a market road for local farmers, most of its current infrastructure dates to the early 20th century. Patchwork fixes have only staved off a century of deterioration. Flooding has undermined the road's substructure, most dramatically in 2011, when the bridge over Soapstone Creek collapsed. Since it needs to replace the roadbed anyway, DDOT has taken the opportunity to update the design for modern uses.

The Broad Branch area. Bike routes appear in blue on the right map. Image from DDOT.

Three constituencies use the road regularly: motorists, cyclists, and joggers. The first has no real difficulty using the road, but the road and its bridges were built for smaller cars going slower. The road, after all, was originally a market path for local farmers.

Cyclists can use the road, but they have to keep to a quick pace. It's not suitable for children, deterring families from using their neighborhood parkland. Finally, there are no real facilities for joggers, let alone walkers, but they have to skirt the roadway to access Soapstone Valley, which feeds Broad Branch.

That means that currently, the Broad Branch only optimally serves motorists, mostly during rush hour. Early community outreach has produced 4 options for an Environmental Assessment. Beyond the no-action alternative, one proposal is to simply rebuild the road, altering it to improve safety and reduce the footprint.

A third alternative would add a sidewalk, while the most substantial would include a full-length bike lane in the uphill direction as well as the sidewalk. All rebuilding options would all include stormwater retention gardens and contextually-appropriate safety walls.

Sample cross-sections of each alternative between 32nd and 27th Streets, NW.

Sample cross-sections of each alternative around Davenport Street, NW.

Sample cross-sections of each alternative south of Brandwine Street, NW.

Of the alternatives, only the fourth takes advantage of the route's potential. A quiet, wooded route with a low grade is ideal for use by cyclists and pedestrians. For commuters, Alternative 4 is ideal. It includes a 4' bike lane in the uphill direction of traffic, but not one downhill.

Given the narrow right-of-way, this option is the best use of space, because cyclists on Broad Branch can often move with traffic going downhill, but only the most athletic can sustain 25mph uphill for two miles.

Making Broad Branch more convenient for cyclists will open up large swaths of upper northwest to sustainable forms of commuting. Residents won't have to huff and puff up the hills and ridges that make Upper Northwest so exhaustingly "upper." Cycling neighbors could practically coast all the way in via the bike path along Rock Creek and comfortably ride home.

The bike lane and sidewalk will also benefit locals looking for recreation in their own neighborhood. Most of Rock Creek is surrounded by steep escarpments that make access to it difficult and dangerous for residents on either end of the age spectrum. A paved sidewalk on the easy slope of Broad Branch will increase accessibility dramatically for a wide range of abilities. The valley itself would also be more usable to residents, making it more of an amenity than it currently is.

A criticism of alternative 4 is that it encroaches on the streambed and increases the amount of paving along the road. These issues should be addressed with design elements that reduce runoff. Signage at the rain gardens, as well as other sites of interest would provide an opportunity for interpretation of the park, history, and the impact of urbanization. More importantly, by making alternative modes of commuting more convenient, a complete Broad Branch road would reduce automobile pollution.

To make the most impact this project needs to be part of a larger network. The sidewalk bill is one part of this. Any plans should take into consideration the opportunity to calm traffic and improve safety by adding bike lanes on the unnecessarily wide Nevada Avenue, which is the extension of Broad Branch up a former stream valley. The potential of a Broad Branch that serves all uses should not be passed over.

Because the road needs to be so radically rebuilt, the opportunity to make these changes will not come again for many years. It is important that the road meet the ecologically sensitive needs of the population 50 years from now. Rebuilding it as a car-only route would be a serious mistake.

DDOT is interested in hearing from the public. To make that easy, any comments you post here will automatically also go to the project email address.

20 comments

DDOT will remove "no peds no bikes" sign on Broad Branch (Jul 7, 2011)
DDOT presents Klingle trail progress (Dec 17, 2009)
DDOT ponders four decisions for Klingle Valley trail (Jun 21, 2010)
Rock Creek Park trails slated for fixes (Feb 24, 2011)
Activate Ward Circle for pedestrians and cyclists (Oct 31, 2011)

A simpler design will strengthen the Bond at Tenley

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:31:00 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

A building proposed for Tenleytown deserves praise for putting density in the right spot, but its design is too fractured to contribute to the character of Tenleytown. Although the building fills the majority of the lot and is lined with retail, it is neither an interesting work of architecture nor a quiet background building.

Douglas Development's planned building at Brandywine and Wisconsin, NW.

The Bond at Tenley suffers from overcomposition. In order to break up the bulk, the architects at Shalom Baranes and Associates used large-scale overlapping conceptual volumes to break down the sense that the building is a single, solid object. These shapes mostly refer to differences in the building's urban context, like the angles between streets. Baranes then intersected and manipulated them into each other in order to diminish the presence of the building's mass.

However, at smaller scales and different locations, the same figures repeat. Blocks and grids overlap and glance by each other, repeating the same general patterns. Rather than using the shifts of scale to contradict figures or develop simplicity, the architects jostled oversized parts together.

PUD filings and renderings on the project's website show the façades principally forming a thick bar along Wisconsin Avenue. From this block, a pane of gray metal splits out to match the north-south orientation of the city's grid and the Brandywine Street façade.

By itself, the scissor neatly registers the odd angle formed between the old Georgetown Pike and the city's grid, while opening up to the street. But then there's the brick elevator tower and a separate set of bay windows and the parapet, and a dozen different windows.

But that's not it. The retail strip is articulated as entirely separate from the top of the building, weakening the relationship of the upper stories to the street. A second color of terracotta runs up the middle of the Wisconsin side, implying another, imaginary volume. Then, there are several tiny balconies protruding from the front, some of which are created by the formal moves, and others seem arbitrary. A look at the floorplans reveals a tortured façade that generally adds up to nothing in particular.

Typical residential plan at right, ground floor at left.

With all of these inflections, what do any of them mean? What part of the context or urban form does the building highlight? A more limited number of operations, with a greater depth of detail, would produce a better environment for passers-by. A building with more depth would stand on its own, even as other buildings fill up the neighboring lots and residents become inured to its presence.

Consider the difference between the sounds of two popular summer pastimes: crashing waves and fireworks. One is a repetitive, muffled noise with numerous subtleties, such that the slightest change in timing can make you hold your breath. The other is loud, arranged for variety and effect, and very, very loud. Worse, Baranes' design is like a fireworks show where every explosion is meant to drown out the noise of every other explosion, so you can't pin a boom to a flash or react to one before the other. Which one would you rather live in?

It's not entirely fair to pick on this building, but it is representative of the city's reputation. When national publications criticize Washington for its conservatism, they are not talking about the traditionalist works. They are talking about the endless formalized reference to context, uncommitted postmodernism, and the high-end banal glass. The plaid grid of featureless panels is so common in DC buildings, one could call it DC's "official" façade treatment, the architectural equivalent of the Rickey.

However, the trend towards something more lively is already embedded in the design. The architects have called for a terracotta rainscreen for the Wisconsin Avenue façade. The systems used allow for more variety and greater sustainability. Baranes have already successfully used this kind of cladding at Waterfront Station, in Southwest DC. On a smaller project like this one, they could be more experimental with how these small, ceramic panels add to the experience of passers-by.

Two examples of a rainscreen at Waterfront Station. Photo by Bwalsh on Flickr.

The design of this particular building is important, because it will set the tone for the coming development in this neighborhood, as it diversifies and intensifies. More generally, the building represents a particular fixation of Washington architects: design not to meet context, but originating in the various shapes of buildings around it. SBA is one of the A-list architecture firms of the DC area, and already has a presence in Tenleytown, the excellent Cityline. A clean design that develops complexity without ostentatiousness is entirely possible.

If Tenleytown is to look different from downtown, this project can start to make the distinction. This is the first building of a coming regeneration. The importance of setting the tone is important. Tenleytown needs transit-oriented development with enough cohesion and activity to maintain and grow its identity. Simply deferring to the mediocre context will not develop the neighborhood, but merely perpetuate the present state in nicer materials.

Rather than use its influence to oppose all design, ANC 3E and the Tenleytown community should work with the developer to produce a better design, one with rhythms and scale that relate to the street and surroundings while bringing something new and vital to the area.

Cross-posted at цarьchitect.

13 comments

Can architecture transcend its obsession with expressive design? (May 18, 2009)
AU's Tenley campus proposal is pinned to the past (Jul 21, 2011)
Tenleytown Safeway project deserves Ward 3's support (Apr 12, 2012)
West End projects bring architectural flair to DC (May 4, 2011)
Georgetown, Tenleytown post offices good opportunities for Smart Growth (Nov 16, 2009)

An opposition hotbed near AU was once itself opposed

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:37:00 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

The strongest criticism to American University's East Campus project has come from some neighbors in the adjacent Westover Place private community. Their case against the plan, however, is eroded by a development fight 36 years ago, where their own homes were the development threatening to spoil Northwest's character.

Townhouses of Westover Place. Image from Google Street View.

Just as some residents are fighting the potential of AU's campus expansion, so did an earlier generation fight the development of the property that abuts a five-acre parking lot AU wants to turn into a leafy complex of low-rise residential buildings.

A substantial amount of opposition has arisen in Westover Place, a gated complex of rowhouses between Massachusetts Avenue and ~~Foxhall Road~~ New Mexico Avenue. They have been the most vocal at ANC 3D meetings, insisted that AU build its buildings next to other people's homes, and gathered there for this summer's traffic protest.

Westover Place and AU. Image from Google Maps.

But in 1977, it was the threat of Westover Place that was vexing locals. According to a September 25th, 1977 Washington Post article:

And to the north of this, adjacent to the 5-acre university parking lot, Kettler Brothers Inc., the giant development company that built Montgomery Village, has already cleared more than eight acres where 149 town houses will be constructed. Houses in this development, Westover Place, will sell from about $135,000.

In the article, entitled "Bulldozers at the Estates," Phil McCombs reports on arguments and characters not unlike the current fights over American University's expansion and other developments in the area. Just as before, opponents are appealing to a right of first arrival, but the article lays bare the hypocrisy in living in a development while fighting a development because it will have the same effects your house did. The rowhouses of Westover Place and similar developments paved over Northwest's last open spaces that seemed so essential to the "rural" character of piedmont Washington.

Similar to the opposition to the 1960 Tenley Library and the 1941 Sears Roebuck, an enormous to-do was made over the development and yet both became established elements of the community. At that time, however, the changes seemed signified the end of something unique. McCombs quotes the ANC3 Commissioner Polly Shackelton bemoaning the change:

"Here you have these fine established residential neighborhoods, which will be impacted with increased density and traffic and all kinds of things that really could be very damaging," she said. "I think in a way it's too bad we don't have a comprehensive plan."
She said that development of the Rockefeller estate, for example, "will be devastating because Foxhall Road is already crowded. With 100 new houses there, I don't know how we'll deal with it."

The problematic idea here is "establishment": that because a neighborhood has reached any level of development at all, it should be maintained as it is. Are the current residents who now enjoy this property more justified than their neighbors who lived there in 1977, or estate owners who lived there in 1917?

Dramatic Change: Westover site (red) in 1894 and 1965. Maps from USGS.

No, these developments were part of the gradual urbanization of rural estates with density that is more appropriate to a close-in area. In 1977, it was the end of estates, and now it is a shift away from suburban design. Planning should manage change, but we cannot presume to think that any section of a city is in its final state. This flux, and its resistance are the same as today as they were a generation ago.

The objections seem as new (and as stale) as ones thrown up on the Tenleytown listerv yesterday. Just as opponents of Douglas Development's proposal for the former Babe's Billiards site have argued, in 1977 "Area residents said they are concerned that students from the nearby university will team up in the apartment buildings—creating what one person called 'rabbit warrens.' There is also concern that parking space will be insufficient, or that residents of new developments will park in the streets rather than pay to park in areas provided by the developers."

But the city and its infrastructure have been able to adapt to the new houses and the new apartments. The Metro arrived at Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. Both of those neighborhoods have survived significant growth, and quality of life and environment has improved. Friendship Heights, in particular, remains extremely popular as a place to raise a family, even has it has grown more popular as a retail destination and apartment community.

Long-term residents recall the fight of the development of the Glover estate as quite heated, yet the predicted cataclysms never came to pass. Residents of newer developments have integrated into the community, enough to fight changes, at least. Why should we expect any of the dire predictions about AU's expansion to come to fruition?

Cross-posted at цarьchitect. A version of this post appeared in the November 15th, 2011 issue of the Northwest Current.

23 comments

Proposed AU dorms earn an easy A (Jun 10, 2010)
AU students need more, quality on-campus housing (Mar 3, 2011)
Moving AU law school could revitalize Tenleytown (May 26, 2010)
AU's East Campus plan is a good start (Jun 7, 2011)
Neighbors oppose redevelopment of Dupont parking lot (Aug 25, 2011)

An Anacostia footbridge should be more than just a path

Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:14:00 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

David Garber has been calling for a pedestrian bridge across the Anacostia. If DC were to build such a bridge, what should it look like?

Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge in Omaha. Image by Nic221 on flickr.

The bridges over the Potomac, Anacostia, and Rock Creek are critical connections across the strongest boundaries in DC. The relatively few crossings are the bane of commuters and a significant impediment to the livability of the DC area.

The NCPC NCPC's Extending the Legacy Plan suggested a bridge, and a slew of impressive and iconic pedestrian bridges have recently popped up around the United States.

But when planning a bridge, it's important to consider more than just how the bridge gets people from one side of the river to the other. The structure also needs to function as part of an recreational waterfront, like a public place or a street, including the activities of commerce and relaxation.

Creating a more pleasant route for non-motorized commuters is a good enough end, but for more casual enjoyment, it needs some other qualities. Iconic bridges tend to beautifully express directed motion from one end to another, but not the pauses and distractions of a stroll.

In a way, you create a long pedestrian-only space with no activating buildings. Without a mass of people, those spaces are alienating or unsafe.

Here are some examples that approach the concept differently.

St. Pauls from the Tate end of the London Millennium Bridge, by Ki-Chi-Saga on Wikimedia.

London's Millennium Bridge is a very successful precedent. It's on the long end at 1250 feet, but it's roughly the same size as a Poplar Point Crossing would be. It is part of a pedestrian-only corridor that runs from St. Paul's Cathedral to the Tate Modern, two of the busiest tourist attractions in the world. You have great views of the City and St. Paul's, but it's not very wide and not a great place to linger. This best represents the standard connector bridge.

BP Pedestrian Bridge by Frank Gehry for Chicago's Millenium Park. Image by Torsodog on Wikipedia

The foot bridge that joins Chicago's Millenium Park to Grant Park is more interesting, but less practical. In order to avoid imposing staircases, it runs at a slight incline over a serpentine course. Its relaxed experience of compressions and twists are meant more for casual strolling than a commute, but fits the park setting.

The Charles Bridge in winter. Photo by Estec Co. on Wikimedia.

Prague's Charles Bridge offers both experience and connection. It's a little longer than the Millenium Bridge, but it's twice as wide. The space is much more habitable, with vendors hawking touristy schlock on half the space. It has some interesting features, including gateways on either end, refuges, and baroque statues lining the sides. In some ways, it's much more like a park allée than a bridge, where the inward space of the bridge is emphasized as much as the scenery around it.

There's also the precedent of putting buildings on a bridge. The Washington Business Journal recently reviewd some of the more famous unbuilt buildings in DC, in advance of an exhibit at the National Building Museum. Included in the accompanying slideshow is a bridge designed by Chloethiel Woodard Smith, based on Florence's Ponte Vecchio.

Chloethiel Woodard Smith's proposal for the Washington Channel. Image from WBJ.

The Ponte Vecchio, like Old London Bridge, accrued shops and houses over the years, becoming indistinguishable from any other city street. Smith, an influential architect who designed some of Southwest's better buildings, proposed this bridge to cross from the Southwest Waterfront to East Potomac Park.

I don't know whether this would pass a modern environmental analysis, but the opportunity to put restaurants, fountains, or play structures out on the water could emulate the unique atmosphere of a pier, only without the dead end.

A view of the Triple Bridge in Ljubljana. Image by Jaime Silva on flickr.

Lastly, one alternative would be to build a multi-modal bridge, but make the pedestrian facilities much nicer, with big sidewalks, slow speed limits, or maybe even a sensitive grade separation, like Basel's Dreirosenbrücke. Or, a solution like Jože Plečnik's Triple Bridge could be in order. In a set of three converging bridges, the pedestrian experience is considered primary, but light motoring traffic can use it as well.

These bridges show how it's worth applying some ingenuity to the development of the waterfront. The iconic bridge only takes a neighborhood so far. There has to be something else there. Maybe the model should start by looking at not only at good bridges, but also good streets that suit both commuting and for strolling.

If you have any other examples of bridges that provide great pedestrian experiences, please suggest them in the comments.

Cross-posted at цarьchitect.

40 comments

NCPC worries about viewsheds in waterfront development (May 4, 2010)
Walk or bike along the Anacostia, but only business hours (Mar 17, 2011)
Poplar Point planners present possibilities (Jul 23, 2009)
Irving Street becomes unofficial dog latrine (Jan 28, 2011)
11th Street bridges, part 1: The plan (Feb 9, 2009)

Don't just preserve history at AU, interpret it

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:54:00 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

With a more creative approach to preservation, American University's plan for its Tenley Campus could produce better urban design and a more compelling presentation of the site's history.

Capital Hall. Image from Wikipedia.

AU has agreed to preserve several structures on the site: the a former farmhouse called Dunblane House, Capital Hall the main building visible from Tenley Circle, and a Chapel. Together, these buildings form an axis that the Historic Preservation Office has insisted on preserving.

The Historic Preservation Office is right to emphasize this axis; it is probably the most interesting part of the site. The architects at SmithGroup have worked within these requirements to create a private quadrangle between the old house and Capital Hall, which looks good so far.

But AU has also decided to build on the footprints of the existing 1950s buildings and not construct anything that would obscure Capital Hall. The buildings are preserved, but no part of the campus will feel different from the others, even if they are in a slightly different style. The new buildings offer no key to understand on the site they inherit.

To understand what I mean by interpretation, take a look at Machado & Silvetti's renovation of the Getty Villa. They combined the pragmatic need for an an entry stairway with architectural promenade that helps visitors understand the museum's curatorial approach.

An abstract amphitheater is used to frame the Getty Villa as an an art object.

Treating the 1970s replica of a roman villa as an object in a collection, stairs and pathways frame the building in a sequence that calls to mind an excavation. The stair gives visitors a lens with which to understand the building and clears their minds of the drive out to Malibu.

At Tenleytown, the preservation aspect should have the same approach. Rather than preserving the front of the campus as slice of DC's rural history, any new buildings should frame the old buildings in a way that heightens one's awareness of the area's history, which dates back to the tobacco plantations and and dirt farmers who worked the land before the streetcar suburbs.

Dunblane - marked H. Blunt in 1859. Image from the Library of Congress.

By at least 1820, Dunblane House stood on the site, connected to what was then called Georgetown Pike by a long perpendicular driveway. In 1902, when the Sisters of Providence purchased the property for a women's college (Immaculata), they constructed Capital Hall and a chapel over that driveway.

Then, when the city was carving out Nebraska Avenue in the early 20th century, they designed it to intersect Wisconsin Avenue at the same spot where the Dunblane axis ends. Now, from the Dunblane site to Tenley Circle, we have a series of related buildings with a lot of history. But those buildings feel disconnected from the neighborhood.

A good redesign of the campus would link the neighborhood to the campus without diminishing the historic structures.In most projects, architects contrast new work through a difference of style. Here, the architects have an unequaled opportunity to explore the difference through urban design strategies.

The carefully arranged axes at the Tenley Circle. North is up. Image by the author.

Capital Hall is oriented towards Wisconsin Avenue, but it's hard to see the connection to Wisconsin Avenue for two reasons. The first is the lawn in front of the building, which distances Capital hall from its focus. The second is that none of the adjacent buildings are on the same axis. The residences on Nebraska are face that thoroughfare, while St. Anne's Church and the old convent on Yuma Street are aligned north-south on the city's grid.

I propose that the most effective way to contextualize the historic buildings is to heighten the sensation of contrast between the four axes at Tenley Circle by framing part of the frontal lawn with buildings. One would be aligned to Nebraska Avenue and the other to Yuma Street, with a staircase and plaza preserving line-of-sight between Capital Hall and the circle.

A rough alternative for the Tenley Circle campus. A public stair leads up to a semi-private courtyard, framing Capital Hall. Wings along Yuma and Nebraska tie the campus to the city.

The plaza would serve as the badly needed front entrance, while focusing the view from Capital Hall to Tenley Circle. Wings that face Nebraska Ave. and Yuma St. would relate the campus to the city streets. The difference in orientation would allow for a poetic negotiation from the historic architecture to the contemporary, and from the work world to the academic one.

At the opposite end of the axis, AU should not have to keep the physical structure of Dunblane House, which does not have any merit for legal protection. However, AU should reinterpret the outlines, either another building or a garden feature, to anchor the axis and suggest an imprint of history.

AU's current plan misses a unique opportunity to interpret history through public space. The HPO's insistence that nothing can occlude Capital Hall will render that history as inaccessible the building itself. A different approach is necessary, one that lets us understand the past in relation to our needs and ideas. I believe that I have only scratched the surface of the tremendous architectural potential at the Tenley Campus.

14 comments

AU's Tenley campus proposal is pinned to the past (Jul 21, 2011)
Moving AU law school could revitalize Tenleytown (May 26, 2010)
HUD building up for landmarking (Jun 12, 2008)
Let's write a better historic preservation law, part 1 (Jun 23, 2008)
Preserve our buildings with conservation districts (Jul 23, 2010)

AU's Tenley campus proposal is pinned to the past

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:16:00 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

American University plans to move its law school to its land two blocks from the Tenleytown Metro. That has enormous potential, but the design should more directly engage the surrounding urban fabric.

Unfortunately, as expansion plans are presented it is becoming clear that AU's designs remain pinned to the past. Despite the urban location of the Tenley campus, plans for it are based on flawed and outdated suburban design principles.

Site Plan as of June. Tenley Circle, Wisconsin Avenue, and the front lawn are to the upper left. Up is north. Image from AU.

It makes sense to move the law school to the Tenley campus. Most law school faculty and students live off campus and commute to the school from homes and jobs elsewhere in the city, making the site's accessibility a strong feature. In addition to the Metro, bus lines in eight directions link the circle to points all over Northwest DC. This level of accessibility will make it easy for students to attend classes without ever parking a car on local streets.

The law school should also benefit the community. The Tenley campus is near two functional but underdeveloped commercial strips on Wisconsin Avenue that have been struggling for years. An expanded campus would energize the South Tenley and Tenleytown strips by creating a bridge of activity between them where there is now just a narrow sidewalk and an empty field.

Change in lot coverage. Blue areas are new area, yellow is removed, gray is no change. Dark gray represents preserved buildings.

But as of July, the designs do not meet of the location's potential. AU asked the architects, SmithGroup, to mass the building in the footprints of the 1950s campus. Those objects relate to each other, but to the city or the local streets.

A big empty lawn. Photo by the author.

The worst consequence of this decision is the retention of the marginal green space between the main building and Tenley Circle. Instead of a place for people, the most visible and accessible part of the site becomes a large no-man's-land. At precisely the spot where the campus should best engage the city, it turns its back.

Around the sides, the site plan leaves even more empty shrub-filled spaces. AU has assured worried neighbors that these large setbacks will screen the bulk of new buildings, but they are a half-measure. As at East Campus, AU is trying to screen the buildings as a substitute for designing more attractive or exciting buildings. Here, the choice makes all of the perimeter conditions the same, front and back, and all relatively unproductive.

Only the area shown in green is park space. The rest is a green buffer.

Moving the buildings to the front would let the designers consolidate the green space into useful parks at the rear of the site, rather than left as unused spaces on the fringe. It is completely contextual to have a larger building with strong streetwalls fronting the main street, with smaller structures set back on the side streets. This is how nearby blocks have developed, and how most blocks on Wisconsin are zoned.

The 4900 block of Wisconsin Ave has a wall of attached storefronts on the avenue and detached homes behind.

SmithGroup's challenge at this site has been to lay out a plan that creates a campus environment internally, and that meets the neighborhood on one side and greets the city on the other. Their plan achieves a campus feel and blends into the neighborhood relatively well, but does not greet the city.

The campus needs an urban front, a kind of civic space where the main building meets Tenley Circle. One way to achieve that would be with a public staircase.

There are many precedents of public staircases connecting dense urban areas with campus environments, both grandiose and intimate. Columbia University's enormous cascading plaza does double duty as the main social location on campus and and as a threshold between the busy street and the academic campus above.

Left: Columbia's Low Plaza. Photo by Julia Fredenburg on Flickr.
Right: Pioneer Courthouse Square. Photo by Bob I Am on Flickr.

The smaller staircases at Chicago's Field Museum and New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art are great places to wait, socialize and watch: quintessential urban places.

And these don't have to be so grandiose. Polshek Partnership's entryway to the Brooklyn Museum includes two large stair-like seating areas with pragmatic ground-level access. Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland is a more casual example of an urban stair.

Also out in the Pacific Northwest, the FDR Memorial's designer Lawrence Halprin designed two fascinating parks that reveal the natural environment and the experience of spaces on sites with significant slopes.

These are all great places to wait, socialize and people watch. They are quintessential urban spaces, and illustrate how clever architecture can connect an urban environment to a campus by a great front door.

AU's choice to locate the law school at Tenley Circle is an opportunity to dramatically improve the character of the neighborhood, leaving it more vibrant and green. To take advantage of this opportunity, AU needs to rethink the urban design of their site plan.

In part 2, I'll discuss the historic preservation issues about the proposed campus.

Cross-posted at цarьchitect.

24 comments

Don't just preserve history at AU, interpret it (Jul 22, 2011)
Moving AU law school could revitalize Tenleytown (May 26, 2010)
AU's East Campus plan is a good start (Jun 7, 2011)
AU students need more, quality on-campus housing (Mar 3, 2011)
AU's campus plan offers mediocre architecture (Jul 18, 2011)

AU's campus plan offers mediocre architecture

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:39:00 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

While American University's campus plan will improve Ward 3 and DC as a whole, the architecture in the proposal is mediocre at best.

View along Nebraska Avenue. Image from AU.

Beyond the land-use planning, East Campus and North Hall's proposed buildings offer little in terms of aesthetics. The spaces are disorganized and the forms are uninspiring. On the outside, the buildings don't relate to the street well, and the façades present foggy contextualism.

Instead of well-executed buildings, the design revolves around appeasing neighbors while important aspects are left undeveloped.

For East Campus and some of the Main Campus buildings, AU hired Little Diversified Architectural Consulting, a Charlotte-based firm with offices in Alexandria. They have designed a large dorm at Catholic University, Opus Hall, similar in style and form to AU's proposed facilities. Other design work was executed by the university's large in-house architectural group and the firm of McKissack & McKissack.

Slide 87 and 89 of the Zoning Commission presentation showing Building 1. Image from AU.

All of the work the architects have done so far is difficult to judge because the documentation provided by the university is limited and filled with inconsistencies.

Take, for example, the main dormitory building on Nebraska Avenue, Building 1. In site plans presented to the Zoning Commission, the protrusion containing the stairs and common spaces is to the north of the building, but in the floor plans, those spaces are to the south. I can't tell which is accurate. Frustratingly, nearly all drawings are rendered in a faux-sketch style that fudges important details.

But there is enough content to see that the current design is flawed at a scale below the site. That same building along Nebraska Avenue (#1) runs as an extruded block - a slab - lengthwise against the street, routing pedestrians to the corner crosswalks.

To break up the monotony of the building, the architects jagged the building about halfway. This shift, however, has no relation to the rhythms of the main campus across the road. Instead, the design relates only to the driveway AU is trying to retain from the current parking lot.

Site Plan showing a series of long, continuous slabs and a handful of quasi-classical boxes. Image from AU.

Loosely tied to the streets, the slabs and boxes float in the site plan, generally aligned to each other but without any juxtaposition or inflection. They are only linked together along the southern edge of the campus, where buildings are used to hide students from Westover Place.

Elsewhere, gaps between buildings form simple cuts without any compression or release. Where the odd angles of Buildings 2 and 5 come close, the architects simply sliced off part of Building 5 to keep the distance from wall to wall consistent.

Within the campus, the internal courtyards do not relate too well the buildings that define them, particularly on the interior organization. In the dormitories, the bedrooms line hallways of varying lengths. The circulation and social spaces in each building cross the grain, protruding as glass boxes at arbitrary points. Considering that these volumes mark the dormitories' front doors, it's baffling that they have no relation to one another.

Along the perimeter, the slabs meet the streets unsuccessfully. At the café spot, a slim, continuous canopy is meant to add a human scale to a Starbucks. Instead, the uninterrupted ribbon just heightens the sensation of flatness.

Because the sidewalks are separated by a buffer, there is no experience of approaching the building head on, again exacerbating the flatness. The only relief from the slab is some halting ornamentation thrown around the buildings, and even that is still maddeningly flat.

Nebraska Avenue Elevation. Image from AU.

The aesthetics are modernistic in their slipping proportional relationships, and they're traditionalistic in the formal quotations. However, it has neither the clear proportions of a good modernist building, nor the interconnected part-to-whole relationship of a building of Greco-roman classicism. You can see the design as a series of layers meant to soften the impact of the building: a "contextual" brick facade on a precast one on a glass volume.

The word is overused, but these buildings are pastiches: a jumble of appliqués to a mass designed in a fundamentally different way, like a Soviet housing block lovingly rendered in loose watercolor. None of the wit or polemic of Venturi's paper facades exissts when the only reason to so explicitly drape the building is to make it blend in halfheartedly.

At East Campus, style is window dressing, another kind of buffer against undesired effects. Hiding a poster of Bruce Lee with an errant molding. The students in the dorms seem to understand that the administration does not: that the best style is no style. The best design manifests itself as useful spaces and memorable buildings that stimulate the students as much as the curriculum does.

The design of public and communal spaces is part of the culture of AU, and they embody the values of the university.

American has been successful architecturally in its sustainable design. The school has maintained and grown its campus greenery and a significant arboretum, and has eliminated car traffic from the heart of campus. Hartman-Cox's Business School addition and William McDonough's SIS building are both exemplary in their design for energy use and environmentally friendly materials.

Additionally, the 2011 Plan goes further with its commitment to LEED Gold certification for all of the buildings on east campus and LEED Silver on the main campus buildings. By 2021, this level of sustainability will be standard, if not a necessary. Whether a building still has an endearing affect and whether it works well will remain an asset.

In the end, the main issue may not be the result of poor architects, but of a poor client. In meetings, AU's representatives have not expressed the cultural or political relevance of their building projects. Again and again, the emphasis is that nothing is changing, or at least, no one will notice it. The design reflects this attitude, and East Campus's proposed architecture is an architecture of desperate stasis at the expense of good design.

Computer rendering with trees removed. Image from AU.

23 comments

AU's East Campus plan is a good start (Jun 7, 2011)
Proposed AU dorms earn an easy A (Jun 10, 2010)
AU's Tenley campus proposal is pinned to the past (Jul 21, 2011)
AU students need more, quality on-campus housing (Mar 3, 2011)
Bad architecture of the day, and a quiz (Jun 18, 2008)

AU's East Campus plan is a good start

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:27:53 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

American University's campus plan goes before the Zoning Commission on June 9th. It's imperfect, but the plan still deserves support.

Last May, I wrote in support of the plan to build a residential complex across Nebraska Avenue from AU's main campus at Ward Circle. Over that time, the design has changed significantly. In response to overarching objections raised by some neighbors, the design has taken on less of an urban character than it originally had, which reduces its potential. Nonetheless, with architectural alterations, it will be one of the most important developments in Ward 3.

May 20th Revised Plan. Image from AU.

As part of a larger strategy for growth and consolidation of its school, American will replace a parking lot with six buildings of two to six stories, including 590 beds, a bookstore, admissions offices, classrooms, administrative spaces, as well as some retail. The benefits for AU have been argued over many times; I'll let AU speak for itself. But the benefits of the expansion to the neighborhood and the city are public business.

The new facilities will bring students out of neighborhoods. Currently, AU undergrads are spread out, with roughly 2,000 of 6,000 living off-campus. Some of those students do so by choice, but AU only has room to house 67% of its students. Many juniors and seniors have to look to the neighborhood for a place to live.

The East Campus would pull students from the neighborhood and the Tenley Campus. Better residential facilities would mean fewer students spread out in the neighborhood, fewer noise disruptions, and less of a demand for vehicular commuting.

That reduction in traffic is no small thing. The new facilities adjacent to the central campus mean fewer trips for students and faculty alike. AU is also reducing the total number of parking spaces on campus, and has promised to expand its existing transportation demand management program. Even so, AU's transportation study found that its users never contributed more than 12% of all traffic during rush hour.

The rest of the vehicles are commuters passing through the Ward Circle area. The three avenues in the area, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Massachusetts currently serve primarily as automobile routes. The new buildings offer the potential to reorient the circle for those who live and work in the area.

Rather than gnarling traffic, as opponents have insisted, the slight uptick in pedestrian activity caused by the new buildings will force drivers to pay better attention to their presence on this urban street. The potential for more stoplights and a redesigned circle opens the opportunity to reduce speeds and dangerous behavior, likewise making the area safer for residents of all ages.

Through commercial frontage and foot traffic, Nebraska Avenue would become a pleasant place for locals to enjoy. Leaving the interior of the campus for students, a commercial perimeter would become another node in the geography of Upper Northwest. It would never become as dense and vibrant as Bethesda, let alone Tenleytown, but as a tertiary urban center, it can merge into the neighborhood.

Finally, the scheme laid out in the university's plan continues to facilitate the economic activity of American and its affiliates, estimated at $415 million. Although academic institutions do not pay taxes for noncommercial properties, the Examiner reported last week that students and faculty bring money and talent to the area when they come to the region's universities. By building on its land efficiently, AU will be making an optimal contribution to the city and enlivening the streetscape through the benefits of density.

There are potential negatives, which AU needs to mitigate. However, in its effort to compromise on objections, AU has layered the new buildings in greenery and minimized certain urban features, compromising potential, while still not satisfying opponents' demands.

For example, a 40' buffer of greenery adjacent to Westover Place feathers the campus into the neighborhood, but it's not good on all four sides. Adding a similar barrier of impenetrable greenery along Nebraska Avenue will separate the campus and retail from the sidewalk. It requires creating a second, separated walkway that will reduce the very urban characteristic of unplanned interactions. It is no small leap to see this buffer as segregating the school from the city.

Nebraska Avenue Buffer.

Worsening the Nebraska Avenue elevation, the most recent plans call for a roadway to be punched through building #1 to the interior campus. A roadway in that place would disrupt the crucial urban space at the sidewalk. Instead, the plans should return to the right-in, right-out entrance on Massachusetts Avenue presented in the March 18th Final Plan. This is similar to the one at Westover Place, the Berkshire, and other nearby driveways.

At the least, the university could build on their plans for the Mary Graydon Tunnel and design the proposed road as a woonerf, prioritizing pedestrians in a roadway that runs through what is the students' front yard.

Woonerf in Victoria, BC. Photo by Dylan Passmore on Flickr.

Likewise, AU should not be advocating for a new actuated signal on Nebraska Avenue. Instead, it should build timed signals that guarantee AU students the opportunity to cross as frequently and in rhythm with the city's traffic.

A new stoplight, combined with the recommended changes to Ward Circle, would make the area safer than any phystical barrier by limiting the incentive to jaywalk. If a physical deterrent is necessary, planters between the street and the sidewalk should be sufficient, as at Bethesda Row.

Finally, the project should serve as a catalyst for alternative transportation in the area. Bike lanes on New Mexico Avenue would mean better safety and better quality of life for students and neighbors alike. On campus, the administration already promotes a progressive Transport Demand Management plan, with dedicated ZipCar spaces, Capitol Bikeshare, carpooling assistance, shuttles, and SmartBenefits. But without adequate facilities, the full benefits of cycling and bus transit will not be realized.

Smart Growth refers to planning that is appropriate not only at the local level, but across multiple scales: architectural, local, metropolitan, and regional. AU's expansion plan, which would consolidate students, tame traffic, and create a new node of community, works at the larger three scales. Where it fails is in the way that it addresses the street and human scale, compromising enormous potential for solutions that will please no one and will require remediation in the future.

The Zoning commission should endorse AU's 2011 Campus Plan with alterations at the architectural scale.

32 comments

Proposed AU dorms earn an easy A (Jun 10, 2010)
AU students need more, quality on-campus housing (Mar 3, 2011)
Moving AU law school could revitalize Tenleytown (May 26, 2010)
AU's campus plan offers mediocre architecture (Jul 18, 2011)
AU's Tenley campus proposal is pinned to the past (Jul 21, 2011)

Proposed AU dorms earn an easy A

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:50:00 EDT

by Neil Flanagan

With its 2011 Campus Plan, American University has a once-in-a-century chance to reshape Upper Northwest.

The Plan offers two opportunities to local residents. The first is for a beautiful, sustainable, and safe Nebraska Avenue. The second is for a diminished impact on the lives and communities of neighbors. However, in order to reach a mutual solution, residents must give up outdated concerns over traffic flow and urban density.

The Campus Plan, as presented in May, only builds on university land. In addition to the relocation of the law school to Tenleytown, American proposes adding 2,000 new dormitory beds, constructing of a handful academic buildings, upgrading athletic facilities, and vacating leased properties.

Most significantly, the plan would partially eliminate the vast parking lot on the east side of Nebraska. In its place, administrators are asking to build a few dormitories, a row of townhouses, and an eventual "signature" academic building. Even more so than the relocated law school, the dormitory upgrades will benefit the neighborhood.

Housing AU's students poses problems for administrators and locals alike. The university currently has 6,124 undergraduate students, with only half students housed on-campus. The remaining half live in houses and apartment dispersed throughout the surrounding neighborhoods. Even on-campus housing is less than ideal. Students live in cramped triples and in the Berkshire apartment building.

Having students live in the surrounding neighborhoods causes complications and occasional conflicts. Among other things, some students drive to campus. Moving more students into walking distance will save energy, reduce needless traffic, and cut drunk driving. But more importantly, it may help diffuse tensions between locals and students.

AU is offering a variety of housing styles in their new buildings. Suites and apartment style living join most of the social benefits of group houses with the conveniences of dorms. Moreover, with nicer facilities and fewer cramped rooms, students will be even more inclined to live in university housing. Once they have rooms to party in, students have fewer reasons to form off-campus party houses and fewer reasons to negatively impact the neighborhood.

The new beds will benefit the community by themselves. The buildings that contain those beds and the campus surrounding them can also benefit all other residents of the DC area, through good design.

West of Ward Circle, university buildings will flank Nebraska avenue, opening up potential for a remarkable space that extends the original campus onto the new one. Already, he elimination of the ugly parking lots will improve the area. Good design would make it world-class.

With thoughtful space planning and attractive details, the campus can be a joy to inhabit and pleasant for non-students to pass through. It is possible to design to minimize light and noise pollution. As for density, the floor-area-ratio for the whole campus will only increase from 0.5 to 0.8. There will be plenty of park space left over.

Redesigning Nebraska is in the mutual interest of the city and the university. Nebraska connects American's campuses and it connects the school to the city. A boulevardized street with multiple pedestrian crossings, improved bicycle facilities, and a usable Ward Circle would transform Nebraska from a dull arterial to the great avenue planners imagined it would be.

The ANCs, neighborhood groups and the university need to work together to craft a plan that matches American University's needs with a refined implementation that benefits the community. Constructive dialogue, formal commitments, and community benefits will make an acceptable plan into one tat could be a model of academic planning.

39 comments

Moving AU law school could revitalize Tenleytown (May 26, 2010)
Harvard's Allston plan: wow (Jun 13, 2005)
GU takes student ghetto approach to housing undergrads (Jan 18, 2011)
Less parking at 14th and U would solve many problems (Feb 15, 2008)
Families, community, and the West End (Jun 17, 2008)