Families, community, and the West End

Public Spaces

by David Alpert • June 17, 2008 2:34 pm

The discussion on Friday's post about the West End has been very interesting. One major theme jumped out of many comments: the West End has no community because it has no families, and it has no families because it's all tall buildings and small condos. Is that true?

Washington Circle. Photo by The Paco
on Flickr.

Let's put aside the debate about whether the neighborhood should comprise tall buildings. That's a settled question: it does. It's also a good idea: clearly, based on high prices for condos in the West End, there is significant demand for condos in a dense area, and DC should satisfy that demand just as it should also satisfy demand for townhouses. We've long ago made a policy decision that the West End will be a high density neighborhood; its proximity to downtown makes it an ideal place for it.

But does that have to mean no community, a place where "there's no there there"? What's different about the West End compared to other areas? We can turn around the argument from the comments into two questions: Can we have community without families? And can we make a West End families want to live in?

Community without families

Gay neighborhoods have few families, yet usually have a strong sense of community. Still, Dupont had some families even in the days when it was not as nice a neighborhood as now. Would Dupont have had as much community without the families?

Still, the West End is not as much a gay neighborhood. Can we have community if the residents are mostly young singles and couples? Adams Morgan has a large number of single younger people as well. So does the Penn Quarter. Do they have a good sense of community? Or is the community there mostly a result of the more established and older residents?

I think it's clear that families contribute to a sense of community and young, transient residents weave less community fabric per person than those who have put down roots, whether they are families or not. The built environment also contributes to the lack of community in the West End by lacking a retail corridor or good public spaces.

The neighborhood vision document suggests making Washington Circle into more of a community space, as Dupont Circle is or even Logan Circle. The library could also provide such a function, especially if its design thinks more broadly than just about books.

Families in the West End

Certainly there are places with many families and tall buildings. For example, Manhattan. However, DC is very different, and families have many nearby alternative places to live where they can get more space for less money.

Schools are certainly part of the equation. Why live in the West End in an expensive, smaller condo when the schools aren't good? At least on the Upper West Side there is decent public education. But New York families can go to the suburbs too, where the schools are often better, and many don't.

To create an environment appealing to at least some families, we need the kinds of amenities that are attractive to families. A library is certainly one, as are good parks to play in with the kids. What else?

It'd also help to have larger condos suitable for families, with two or three bedrooms and separate living and dining rooms. The market isn't providing that right now. Is it worth regulating condo size to some extent?

Right now, though, good public spaces clearly would help the neighborhood sense of community. Families would like them, and so would young people; they would build community among existing residents and attract new ones who are interested in staying longer. Good public spaces are good for everyone.

What do you think? Can the West End have families and tall buildings at the same time? Can it have community without families? Would a good library help? A better Washington Circle? Or something else?

13 comments — Share	— tags: DC, density, families, libraries, public spaces, Washington Circle, West End

Sex and the City: why women and families matter (Feb 20, 2009)
Ask GGW: where should an auto-minimizing family live? (Jul 29, 2008)
Housing and a sense of place for the West End (Jun 13, 2008)
The many definitions of a "modern library" (Jun 4, 2008)
Density on U Street? (Dec 4, 2007)

Comments

Go to Francis pool this weekend, you'll see the community and you'll see kids.

I think one reason the West End is perceived as 'dead' compared to say, Adams Morgan has to do with the built environment. There's very little ground level retail and there really isn't a huge demand, K street, Georgetown, and Dupont are all very close. Would a mixed use structure on 24th and M be profitable?

Then again, Adams Morgan really only has 2 streets with retail-- Columbia and 18th; and parts of retail rich P street are considered the West End.

There are quite a few one way streets in the area. That serves to limit the amount of traffic during non-work hours. Maybe switching them back to 2-way streets would have an impact on perception?

by Alex on Jun 17, 2008 3:07 pm

I'm from Penn Quarter, and I've been surprised to discover that, like the cliche rose growing out of concrete, there's a real community here. Two, actually: the one I knew about when I moved here was the Georgetown Law sub-community, which while somewhat transient is very lively and fun. The one that surprised me is the sub-community to which I now belong: dog owners.

There's only a few large buildings in all of DC that allow dogs, but Penn Quarter has a few, and we dog owners pack into them. I'd guess that 90% of the people in my building are either law students or dog owners (maybe both!). Right now, the community is just limited to recognizing people from the daily walks, but it would be very interesting to see if, now that the neighborhood is a couple years old, it starts to get politically active. The dog owners' lists of demands match up very nicely with the demands of "WalkScore" people: bury the highways, widen the sidewalks, keep the parks safe and clean, and give us interesting things like first-floor retail to walk past.

I'm not saying dog ownership is necessary or even a top priority for community-building, but over here in Penn Quarter it is definitely part of the puzzle.

by Tom Veil on Jun 17, 2008 3:07 pm

Tom-make sure Jonetta Rose Barress (sp?) hears from you on DCWatch.com. She has a strong underappreciation for how dogs enhance human life and human social activity and how dog owners keep the neighborhood safe by being out there all the time walking the dog. She advocates against off-leash dog parks in DC because she mistakenly thinks they are for animals and not people. Maybe she can still be enlightened.

i'm not trying to turn this into a dog-park discussion. I just wanted to encourage Tom to describe the benefits to human street life of dog ownership to a bigger audience.

by Bianchi on Jun 17, 2008 3:42 pm

Isn't the reason that the West End has few families because just about every building is a hotel?

I have long argued that the reason so few upper-middle class DC families don't live in apartment buildings is because there aren't many upper-middle class family-style apartment buildings here. There just aren't that many 1,500-1,800 sq. ft. apartments in DC. If you make a decent living in DC, and you decide to raise a family in DC proper, there are just so many single-family homes to choose from and so few comfortable family-sized apartments to choose from that you mostly end up in a house.

Of course this doesn't apply to middle-class families. But most of them opt out of DC completely because they don't want to send their kids to DCPS, but they can't afford private schools.

by reid on Jun 17, 2008 4:49 pm

Just because you see families at Francis or kids at Francis on the weekends does not mean that they are actually from West End.

by the real friends on Jun 17, 2008 6:36 pm

Pennsylvania Ave. in Foggy Bottom used to have better urban design. More small, mixed use buildings with local retail on the ground floor. Some of the retail was idiosyncratic shops serving the student populations... Al's Magic Shop (old location), a pawn shop where I once bought a guitar, DC's best science fiction book shop, the Circle Theater, a good repertory movie theater. All replaced with much blander and less interesting frontages. Some guidelines encouraging more frequent, active doorways might help with that.

Kalorama Park in Adams Morgan gets a lot of family use in a high density neighborhood. Park space would help Foggy Bottom, but I don't know where it could be located. GWU has a nice quad off H Street, just to mention a nice nearby example.

by Laurence Aurbach on Jun 17, 2008 6:58 pm

I hear Stevens School will pretty soon be closed. Does anyone know if it's going condo?

by Cups on Jun 17, 2008 8:37 pm

It is interesting to me that the word a lot of people have chosen to describe the thread about families is “interesting,” as opposed to “obvious.”

“It has no families because it's all tall buildings and small condos. Is that true?”

The families that live in condos or apartments usually have no more than one kid, so I’m going to say yes, it is at least partly true.

“Let's put aside the debate about whether the neighborhood should comprise tall buildings. That's a settled question: it does. “ Ok then!

“It's also a good idea: clearly, based on high prices for condos in the West End, there is significant demand for condos in a dense area, and DC should satisfy that demand just as it should also satisfy demand for townhouses.”

Eastbanc pretty much has the run of West End. I think “the housing stock” is approaching a majority investor-owned. If that is anyone’s idea of community, rock on! They ought to be very happy.

“Can we have community without families?” Yes, but usually such communities start out with or at one time or another have an incredibly strong sense of family. In other words, families (even if only a minority of the population) are or were at its base. DC is very particular – without a strong sense of place or rootedness, transcience sets in really fast.

“And can we make a West End families want to live in?” Your point two would seem to indicate not. You’ve already settled it. Besides, with Mr Evans as the representative, I doubt families are very high on his priority list.

“Amenities” – ah, the language of the investor class.

“What else?” How about houses. At least, don’t tear any more of them down. Even attached houses. They don’t have to be huge. They don’t necessarily even have to have their own yards, and certainly not their own driveway.

“Would a good library help?” Um, there is a good library. You might not think so, but I do, and lots and lots of other people do too. But to just act like it does not exist, I’m sorry, but it sounds a little bit like elite type language, which is kind of hard to listen to.

As Laurence suggested, it really IS about scale.

Upper Manhattan is definitely not the business district.

by Karl on Jun 17, 2008 9:31 pm

The major employers in Foggy Bottom, in particular, are the State Department, World Bank/IMF, GWU and a number of other international organizations. These employers tend to attract very diverse, far flung workforces and many live near their jobs. Because of the nature of their jobs, these workers may move out for work-related reasons after a few years.

GWU is a special case. If defines Foggy Bottom. In the past five or so years, the university took over three hotels in the neighborhood, the former HoJos on Virgina, the what-was-it-name hotel on 24th and K, and a hotel in Washington Circle. A significant percentage of townhouses in the immediate GW areas have been turned over to use by their owners. GW has, in short, smothered the area.

I remember when GW tore down its old hospital and built the new one. A handful of people from the neighborhood association staged a protest because they didn't want the hospital pushing up so close; the parking lot provided something of a buffer. I'll give the neighborhood group credit. They are tough on GW.

The large parcel created by the demolition of the former hospital site will eventually be developed into some dense use, but will this use add to the neighborhood or just be more of the same?

There isn't much in the way of single-family housing left in Foggy Bottom. The university development cleared out a lot of it and the remaining units constitute a handful of blocks. As as has been pointed out, the housing is small. Studios and one-bedrooms are the norm.

The person who wrote about Gallery Place raises a good point. I've honestly thought about that myself -- why the difference? There seems to be more of a sense of community in Gallery Place even if the street aspect of it is completely washed out by visitors. I think the area is definitely seen as as urban, attractive and lively. But I doubt there are any more families living there (people raising children) then in Foggy Bottom. But here is the key difference in my view: I think the people living in Gallery Place are more focused on living in the city even if Gallery Place isn't their final home in the District, whereas people in Foggy Bottom (largely) see the city as an interim stop. Neighborhood and city matter more to residents of Gallery Place even though there are similar characteristics in the housing types.

Regarding the "west end," which, in my view, remains very ill-defined. But if the area around L/M/23rd is nexus (my view, at least), then I really don't see much evidence of a neighborhood. Where are the neighborhood bloggers? Is there even a specific West End mailing list? A neighborhood association at least somewhat similar to the Foggy Bottom neighborhood association? I view the condos in that area as largely extensions of the hotels that dominate it.

I think the West End will be what it is, nothing more and

the library project won't change it all. If anything, this project will make it library less visible and that will be part of the goal, I suspect. A handful of homeless people sleep at night at library, and during the day quite a few homeless will be in the library reading, writing, getting some shelter. They will likely loose that under *new* management; the new developers of this complex won't want them nearby.

by kob on Jun 18, 2008 12:39 am

As a non-married 20-something living in a high-rise apartment, I am personally offended by the implication that my presence makes for an undesirable neighborhood.

Foggy Bottom is bland because:

1) There’s not enough density. Despite the presence of tall buildings, the West End has lower population density than Mid City. Here’s a census map to illustrate. There are few stores because there are too few people to shop at them.

2) It’s not about the height of buildings, it’s about their width. At the pedestrian scale what matters is how much visual interest there is along the sidewalk. Narrow buildings generate a lot of visual interest because the scene is always changing. Also, narrow buildings have narrow stores, whereas the temptation in wide buildings is to let 1 or 2 stores take up the entire frontage. This is why Clarendon (with its narrower buildings) is more interesting and more alive at the pedestrian level than Ballston, despite Ballston’s higher density. But as parts of New York and Vancouver readily illustrate, there is no reason why tall buildings need be wide.

3) The vitality creating potential of GW (and what density it provides) is largely wasted because a) the university’s public spaces are too inwardly focused, and b) because GW students know they’re not welcome in the neighborhood and go to Georgetown to shop/eat/play.

by BeyondDC on Jun 18, 2008 10:08 am

@BeyondDC

Not that we really have a better public source - but Census 2000 data isn't a great reflection of 2008 for our high growth area.

by F&E on Jun 18, 2008 10:32 am

Fair enough, F&E, although it's extremely unlikely Foggy Bottom has caught up to Mid City.

But anyway, just to be clear: You're in favor of more growth resulting in more density, correct? For the purposes of this question, assume the growth comes in an urbanistically acceptable form.

by BeyondDC on Jun 18, 2008 2:05 pm

These threads are a little schizophrenic.

On the one hand, "the old row house neighborhood has largely disappeared" replaced by hotels, office buildings and condos, I would add - am I mistaken or was Columbia Hospital for Women partially or in total made into a condo building? I'm not sure.

Anyway, as the blogger notes, the West End has several new condo buildings. And, tall buildings are a good idea.

So, this is the way to go, and yet, there is no there there, and according to others there is not ENOUGH density, despite the fact that there are tall buildings.

by Fred on Jun 18, 2008 5:14 pm