Awful green barricade: the answer

Architecture

by David Alpert • June 19, 2008 2:00 pm

Yesterday, I posted about this horrendous project that would create a blank-wall type building at 11th and U with a big green barricade a few feet high.

Why would they elevate the lawn, further reducing its usefulness as a potential public space? The answer is on the architect's project page, which is unavailable (maybe they are cowering from the bad press of this blog?) but still available in Google cache:

By raising the level of the front yard, an English basement level was created allowing for additional levels above.

Here's what I think is going on: there's a loophole in the height rules for zoning. The height of a building is measured from the "natural grade", but in some situations, artificially built-up land around a building may allow it to measure its height from a higher point. I believe that is what they are trying to do here, raising the yard so that the building could be a little higher and they can fit in another floor. Anyone know more specifics about this quirk in zoning?

Congratulations to inlogan who came pretty close to guessing the reason.

As part of the Zoning Update process, the Office of Planning is clarifying the rules around height. Their draft recommendations are more specific about where buildings measure their height (the midpoint of the building's frontage) and require that it use the same street for the height measurement that it uses for the maximum allowable height under the Height Act.

This would particularly affect buildings like Washington Gateway at New York Ave and Florida Ave, which used the curb on the elevated New York Ave for its height measurement to get three more stories than it would normally be allowed.

We should close these loopholes, both because they evade the intent of the zoning regulations, and more importantly, because they lead to anti-urban monstronsities like this. Too many developers build blank walls and landscaped barriers as it is; we don't need to give them a financial incentive to do so.

9 comments — Share	— tags: architecture, bad streets, DC, quizzes, U Street, zoning update

ARTS report balances bars and arts, requirements and bonuses (Sep 9, 2009)
The San Francisco way: curb cuts (Aug 19, 2008)
Unnecessary parking and a curb cut (Jun 23, 2008)
Bad architecture of the day, and a quiz (Jun 18, 2008)
DC keeps getting blank walls (Jan 8, 2008)

Comments

Whoo hoo! Although I credit me knowing that to reading "Best Addresses: A Century of Washington's Distinguished Apartment Houses." He talks about how many apartment buildings in DC have had sunken lobbies since the height limit in order to get another level of liveable space.

by inlogan on Jun 19, 2008 2:31 pm

Isn't this the same technique Marriot used to break the height barrier in Arlington with the Key Bridge Hotel?

by Tim on Jun 19, 2008 4:00 pm

The builder may be creating an extra floor for themselves. But aren't they also sacrificing square footage with the excessive setback from the curb this "barrier" strategy creates? Strange indeed.

by FourthandEye on Jun 19, 2008 4:57 pm

Most zones have a lot coverage requirement (60% in R-5-B, for example). So they can't build on the entire lot anyway.

by David Alpert on Jun 19, 2008 5:00 pm

Since height limits in DC are defined by the width of the street, height should be measured from the curb.

by BeyondDC on Jun 19, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: lot coverage requirement

Why?

Do you guys consider a government-mandated oversized lawn/driveway/steps just as annoying at a government-mandated oversized parking lot?

by Squalish on Jun 19, 2008 5:10 pm

Yes.

by BeyondDC on Jun 20, 2008 9:47 am

Oh, wow. Someone needs to tell the people developing the Union Station rail yards about this! The H Street overpass is probably 5 stories above NW First Street. With that kind of height differential to work with, DC could get its first skyscraper.

by tom veil on Jun 20, 2008 11:40 am

Just wanted to clear up s some confusion on this project’s location - its actually at 2101 11th St NW - 11th and V Streets, NW - not on U.

Very different as proposed being on V Street than on U…

by Cardozo Shaw Neighborhood Association (CSNA) on Jun 20, 2008 2:01 pm