The same logic that applies to 14th Street, ie interference with pedestrians by vehicles, should also apply to S Street. Both JBG's study and the residents' have shown that the intersection of this busy alley and S Street is incredibly busy and dangerous. Many accidents and two deaths over the years have resulted from this alley/street intersection. Yet JBG with VDOT approval, has chosen to locate the garage entrance just a few yards from this intersection. They also will add the entrance to the 100 units a few yards from this intersection.

The result will be if even one car is trying to get into the garage, the sidewalk on S Street will be blocked and other cars trying to enter this alley will have to queue on S Street.

This is a very busy sidewalk as the bus stop is on it and it is the way to the metro for S Street residents.

The loading dock for trucks will be right next to this.

With an alley a block long to work with, placing these vehicle entrances next to one of the worst alley/street intersections in the city shows the extremely poor planning typical of this new surprise proposal.

The residents, including the residents of the alley dwellings involved had agreed with the prior proposal even though it had a 6.00 FAR because it took neighborhood factors into consideration. This new 5.0 FAR proposal is opposed by so many so strongly because it just frankly involves really really poor planning.

by Tom on Dec 3, 2008 12:28 pm  

Having lived at 14th and R street for ten years I can tell you this building and several others like it are exactly what 14th street needs and what 14th street is becoming is what the city needs, a vital broadway. There are few streets in Washington better suited for the classic 4-7 story housing above retail than 14th street. I have to agree with David (again) that the alley is designed to handle alley funcions.

Although the design could be improved by integrating its glass facade with the shmear of masonry cornice above.

by Thayer-D on Dec 3, 2008 3:57 pm  

Well said, David.

I hope that this project, and others like it, can go forward along the 14th Street corridor.

by Hiya on Dec 3, 2008 4:10 pm  

Tom: Do you have any info about the earlier proposal? I'd be interested in comparing it to the current one.

by David Alpert on Dec 3, 2008 4:12 pm  

I really like this project. It can't happen soon enough.

by SG on Dec 3, 2008 4:14 pm  

I hope that your readers take some time and look at an enlarged copy of the project image. As a resident of the Greater U Street corridor, which holds the historic designation, the overall design does not take into account the ascetic of the buildings that surround the property -- east, west, north or south. I am not opposed to adding height, nor to multi-use buildings to the corridor, and support those who are concerned that JBG is not fully taking into account that construction will not take place in a vacuum, but in a historic commercial AND residential community.

by Lydia Charles on Dec 3, 2008 6:07 pm  

I looked at an enlarged copy of the project image. Maybe they could tweak it a little bit, but overall I think it looks pretty good.

I know that others may disagree, but (with regards to building in a historic community...) I really don't mind a little variety or a mix of old and new.

by Hiya on Dec 3, 2008 7:09 pm  

I know the general sentiment has been that this design isn't appropriate for the street. I don't think though that it is because it is "new".

From what I hear, originally the building was supposed to have substantially larger units in it, but when the economy turned, the size of the units got reduced to very small ... and the "pop" out 3'x 3' 'enclosed glass balconies' got added in to what was otherwise a pretty dignified brick and glass window design. They probably didn't dare remove the brick work on the top floors since someone thought that that would make it "fit in" with the old car dealership buildings ... But all it does is make the buildings look top heavy. They'd have done far better just making the whole facade these glass "pop out" enclosures.

Of course, there's always the theory that smart developers know to ask for something they don't really want, so that they can 'compromise' with something they really do ... such as a building full of pop-out balconies ... maximizing space and number of units.

by Lance on Dec 3, 2008 8:11 pm  

There were two proposals- first the clinic & Metroplis and then just Metropolis. The first called for a new Whitman-Walker on Swann Street and that's why there's the "big institution" look still on the present Swann Street proposal. (Makes no sense now since it'll be condos). The greater FAR was with 2nd & 3rd floors extending back more than the new plan and I believe no "U" cutout in back. As it is now the 2nd floor rear condos are about 800 sq. feet each with over 1000 sq. foot roof terraces attached to each. Again, incredibly bizarre planning if we're to believe these plans.

The increased FAR was to be gained mostly by a legal alley closure during construction instead of a VDOT "temporary" one. Additional parking and (as i recall) the power plant was to be under the alley and new electrical and water and sewer lines to replace those there now together with new lighting. At the end of construction the new state-of-the-art alley would be deeded back to the city. During construction Metropolis was going to arrange for trash pick up for S and Swann (so we wouldn't have to put our trash on the curb), leave the sidewalk on S Street open as long as possible, replace parking for residents whose spaces were closed off by construction, and compensation to owners of rental units against the alley during construction for any loss in rentals they might have. The construction is estimated to take 18 to 24 months, which in planning talk means three years. A building this large will obviously require most of the alley to be closed but under the new regime the plan is a VDOT "temporary" closing with no consideration of the neighbors. From our one conversation with them, JBG also wants to move the huge underground power plant to the 14th Street sidewalk which would result in people having to walk over huge iron grates on 14th when that sidewalk is reopened. Here I understand VDOT does not want to go along and wants the power plant under the alley while PEPCO (and JBG) want it under the 14th Street sidewalk to use present power lines.

If the garage entrance has to be in the alley a location a little further from the intersection of the alley and S makes so much more sense for traffic and safety. Either a location at the intersection with the back alley where trucks could take advantage of both alleys for turning, or a location closer to Swann which has almost no traffic. The present proposal will be a traffic and safety disaster at the intersection of the alley and S.

The 100% lot occupancy on the first floor has always been a hard pill for neighbors to swallow. We arranged through Evelyn Branick in Dave Clark's office for the clinic to get the main building and we've always known that the other buildings there would be replaced with buildings built to the height limit. What we never could have foreseen was the 15 foot "rear yard" of these buildings could be abolished through this gimmick of assembling an entire block face, using S Street as the front address, and creating a fictious "rear yard" in Swann Street resulting in 100% lot occupancy. Stepping the building's 1st floor rear back from the alley is critical to us for safety reasons and as I recall our agreement with the prior developer they were going to measure back 15 feet from the center of the alley which would result in the rear being 5 feet back from the alley line. This didn't thrill us but is much preferable to 100% lot occupancy.

There was never any mention before this of an exception from the ARTS overlay.

by Tom on Dec 3, 2008 10:00 pm  

I've moved over Tom Coumaris's comments from today on the old thread on this topic to this one, so that new readers can see the points as well.

Tom: I haven't seen the details of where exactly the parking and/or loading appear in the back. I assume JBG has some reasons for not placing the garage entrance in the center. But if there aren't good reasons, I think it would be preferable to locate the garage in the center, across from the existing alley.

It's too bad you didn't more definitively articulate your desire to move the garage door at the BZA hearing. Commissioner Jeffries asked you your top 3 objections, and you listed, first, the existence of a parking and loading entrance near your door; second, the lower amount of parking; and third, the possibility of a restaurant. From what I heard of most of your comments concerning the garage entrance, it was focused on opposing it entirely. Chairperson Miller asked for alternative suggestions for where to place the loading, and Jim Bogden gave none.

A better approach may have been to specifically request a garage entrance aligned with the center of the project, if that's practical. I don't know if the BZA would have granted that or if it's even possible, but they did seem to be looking for ways to make the project more palatable to neighbors. My perception, at least, of the residents' comments was wholesale opposition to the project.

I know that the lack of notice to the community made formulating a strategy more difficult. Since the record is not fully closed, it may still be possible to recommend some specific changes to the BZA.

I'm particularly puzzled, as was Chairperson Miller, about your opposition to the parking decrease. DDOT has recommended not giving this project RPP stickers. I'm not sure I agree with that, but if adopted, then there can't be any effect on your ability to find street parking. A smaller garage will mean fewer cars in the alley.

Besides, I think the difficulty of finding parking is really much more about people patronizing businesses than about residents. A few residents won't make much of a difference when so many people are trying to drive in to go to restaurants. Add a few new cars, and it'll just dissuade a few visitors from parking in the area.

I hope HPRB will disallow moving the power plant under the 14th Street sidewalk, if indeed it would create large grates. I encourage you to oppose that at the HPRB hearing.

by David Alpert on Dec 3, 2008 10:42 pm  

Who's Dave Clark?

I'm surprised there's no setback on alley side. How will a car (nevermind a truck) ever negotiate a turn in that alley without a setback? These old alleys just aren't that wide.

by Lance on Dec 3, 2008 10:46 pm  

To answer your comment about Mr. Jefferies question to me at the hearing, I specifically asked whether he meant me as a neighbor or me as a citizen. Of course as a neighbor the opening and closing of the garage door all night is my main concern and Jefferies asked me to answer just as a neighbor. As a citizen the answer would have been totally different. I did go into detail on the traffic study we did of the intersection of the alley and S which seemed to agree with the traffic study applicant presented and both show this intersection severly overloaded already. I spoke at length about the danger of adding a lobby for a 100-unit building, the entrance to a 100-car garage, and a loading dock all to this intersection of the alley and S Street. I think was I clear that the proposed location was a disaster.

At any rate the hearing was on this specific variance and three or four special exception requests, none of which involved the entrance to the garage, and even the comments I made about the danger of the intersection were probably legal errata unless they relate to the special exception of the number of parking spaces. On the spur of the moment at a BZA hearing would not have been the place to chose which alternative I support.

The center of the alley would be much more preferable for me as a citizen interested in competent planning even if it's effect on me personally might be just as bad. Without communication there's no way to know where the possible locations are. At any rate Jim Bogden, not I, was asked for alternatives.

I unfortunately doubt seriously that the Board listened to or read much of what was presented. The most telling moment was almost in the last part of the hearing the Chair was totally surprised that there was a variance requested. That doesn't bode well for the level of communication and leaves the opposing parties with little but the hope of preserving a clear record.

I use ZipCar myself regularly and was amazed at the length of discussion of that one required spot. Amazed because the Central Union Mission project which the Board just approved is closing I think the largest ZipCar lot in the city (25 spaces?) and there was nada of discussion of ZipCar in that case. I also ride my bicycle daily but disaree with the need to abolish parking. It's clear IMHO that as parking becomes saturated traffic increases dramatically with cars continually circling blocks looking for a spot. I only use my car once a week to escape our ghetto of over-priced food, goods and services and use ZipCar, my bike, or walk all other times. Unfortunately too many people are tied to their cars. I don't think anything less than a fee on cars entering high-level areas like London has is going to solve the problem.

Dave Clark was a very progressive district councilman for this area. When the couple that owned 1407 S approached me to buy it for $75,000 in a prior lifetime (i'm continually 39) I knew that the clinic was looking to escape Adamas Morgan and Dave's office arranged a procedure to get the building for Whitman-Walker.

by Tom on Dec 4, 2008 12:27 am  

The curtain wall of glass will become exactly that once completed, a wall of curtains since people traditionally like a bit of privacy. It's no slam on modern-ism, just an observation. Hopefully they can look towards Metropolis's 15th and P street project to see a much better blended facade of masonry and glass.

by Thayer-D on Dec 4, 2008 9:26 am  

"As for light and air, the developer submitted studies showing that the building will only minimally overshadow the adjacent townhouses. And alternate designs they could have built as-of-right would have cast the same shadows. My three story townhouse is right across a narrower alley from a nine-story building, which doesn't step back at all on higher floors. Having buildings of different sizes near each other is the reality of living in a city."

David-

A word (or two) about light: Most developers don't submit "light" studies, they submit "shadow" studies. Light studies also track projected changes in ambient (indirect) lighting, due to their projects. So, unless a structure physically blocks direct light, their studies do not capture/demonstrate any impact at all. Further, most developers submit only one "shadow" study, and that one study generally models projected shadows created on June 21st. June 21st is the Summer Solstice, the day the sun is at its apogee. This is *the single* day of the year when N/S shadows are the shortest, and the study generates the result maximally favorable to the developer. The same exact study done on December 21st would show dramatically different shadow results. And, hey, people need more light in the Winter, anyway.

By the way, David, the Dupont East is to the North of you, right? At this latitude there is no time of the year during which the sun is in the Northern horizon. So, one would not expect you to be shaded by it. However, if it is to any other compass-point, you very much would be.

by Mark on Dec 5, 2008 5:51 pm  

You make a good point about June 21st. The neighbors pushed the developer of the Utopia project to submit studies with different days of the year. That sounds like a good idea. I suspect that, while they'd cast more shadows, this design probably still wouldn't cast more shadows than other by-right designs.

Dupont East is more to the northwest of my house, actually. Directly across the alley is to the north, but it extends toward the west, and I'm pretty sure there are times when it blocks the sun. (The sun does set a little north of west in the winter in the northern hemisphere).

But actually, I don't know when it blocks the sun most of the time, because the condo building immediately west of me projects farther back than my house does on all four of its floors, and it blocks the sun in the backyard a lot of the time. My deck is in the shade most of the time, period, whether from my house, that condo building, or the Dupont East.

Anyway, having other buildings is what city living is about. I think it's worthwhile in order to have a great, vibrant retail street a block away. Development on this site will contribute a lot to 14th, and to the neighborhood.

by David Alpert on Dec 5, 2008 6:06 pm  

David- We both want well-planned development at this site that will contribute as much as possible to the economic base of the city and also be the best contribution to the neighborhood. The plan we had worked out with Metropolis had greater density, more housing, more revenue to the city, more revenue to the developer, and much more consideration for the neighbors and community. That's what often happens when neighbors and the community are engaged- it becomes a win-win for both. For a developer to refuse to return phone calls and repeated request for calls from neighbors for almost a year until the hearing is imminent is not a sign that a project is be very well thought out. I understand developers are gun shy from experiences with some neighbors, but the clinic and Metropolis made clear to the new developer that we were easy to deal with, progressive urban planners and would be a big benefit to the new developer as we were to them. Believe me, I want the maximum density use of the property with the most possible benefits to the city. I just want it well thought out. At all costs I'd like to not see an escalation in tension with neighbors which turns into a protracted legal challenge to the DC Court of Appeals. I've been through way too many of those and they take years and stop anything from happening. That's absolutely not my goal.

The Dupont East that you mention was exactly one of the experiences that led us to include the 45 degree setback above 50 feet in our ARTS Overlay when residences are next door. Apart from sunlight, the visual aspect of tiny houses next to huge buildings is disturbing and a slightly gradual esclation is more pleasing. My mentor Harriet Hubbard tried to get Schneider's house which was there designated but that was one of her few failures. Harriet was a crusty old gal who lived partly at the Northumberland and partly in France and brought a lot of French urban planning thought to DC from her son who's an esteemed intellectual in France. Harriet single-handedly got the first historic district in DC (Georgetown) established and though her crustiness and tenacity also single-handily stopped the plan to turn U Street into an interstate highway which would have demolished our entire neighborhood for a planned interchange. Her thought (not mine) on the combination of 14th, 9th and 7th with U in the Overlay was that U would probably cause the 25% liquor limit to be reached sooner for the entire area, saving more os 14th for actual retail and community service. I feared that it would make U Street too much like 18th and I think I was right. 14th will develop fine in the ARTS Overlay but the community needs to focus on U Street's problems. While 14th has 20 foot sidewalks, those on U are 5 feet at the best spots. On the 1300 block southside only one person at a time can squeeze between the trees and the staircases. My involvement has been more with the 1400 block and I did try unsuccessfully to stop all those curb cuts when the gas station went in there. Looking back I wish I had agreed to take that case to the DC Court of Appeals as Harriet urged me. I did later fight them in the BZA when they requested a new variance to try and negogiate with them to abandon two of the four curb cuts, to plant trees in the tree boxes to buffer neighbors and to honor their prior agreement to plant a hedge buffer against the neighboring house. They refused and the BZA passed their requested variance without any compromises.

Just as bad a situation in the 1400 block is the alley that explodes on pedestrians in the middle of the block. I've almost gotten hit by cars coming out of that blind entrance many times. Utopia would have been an excellent opportunity to negotiate something about that alley in exchange for keeping the 14th Street curbcut. My preference would be closing that alley entrance to vehicles and making it a pedestrian walkway with bicycle parking. The interior of that block has two 30 foot alleys and a 15 foot alley with an entrance on T Street. No truck going to the future loading dock for the new project could ever fit in that tiny alley anyway and the garage is to be entranced from 14th.

Regarding the current land rush to the BZA of 14th Street parcel owners, I agree with the Current story today that it's really to get some approval and permit to have exemption of the property from the anticipated February effective date of Inclusive Zoning. The projects don't have any start dates let alone even financing. Next to me the clinic is supposed to go to settlement with the new developer January 1st but Mr. Houng who owns the laundermat still has a $10,000/month option with the developer for a rather large price and he says they don't seem overly eager to exercise it soon. I support Inclusive Zoning and I don't see why it's such an issue here when it has been successsful in our suburbs for many years. It's much preferable to the ghettoization that solely low-income projects often lead to, provides more affordable housing than the government by itself can provide, and promotes a diversity of ethnic groups, ages, and income levels. I like that. I don't want my neighbors to be all old farts like me and well-heeled young professionals. That's not interesting.

I sincerely appreciate your blog and the enormous work I know goes into it. Urban planning is critically important and I really appreciate your interest in it. Honest.

by Tom on Dec 5, 2008 8:46 pm  

David- Thanks. Minor points- At our latitude the sun is in the Southern horizon during winter. Its closest to being directly overhead (but never very far in the northern horizon) in the summer. See: http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm

by Mark on Dec 7, 2008 12:16 am  

Mark: Oops, you're right, I wrote it wrong.

It does set slightly in the northern horizon in the summer, though. It's never directly overhead to the north, but intersects the horizon a little bit north of west in the summer, and rises a bit north of east.

David

by David Alpert on Dec 7, 2008 10:08 am