wow, that's spectacularly bad. what's the allowable building height here? i can't believe anyone would want to put a one-story building with a parking lot on top of a metro station.

by IMGoph on Jul 9, 2008 11:43 am • link • report

Aside from writing the Ward 3 C/M, what are some options for petitioning against allowing this design?

by Bianchi on Jul 9, 2008 11:46 am • link • report

A one-story building at that location certainly does seem like a waste opportunity. However, I think the drive-up is a good idea. This will help some of their patrons, especially the elderly or infirm ones, more easily get needed medications and supplies. Not everyone can walk or bike easily ...

by Lance on Jul 9, 2008 12:18 pm • link • report

The proposed building is two stories, by the way. The second story would overhang some of the parking in front on Connecticut.

Everything about the design of this store says drive here, don't walk here. Don't even walk near here.

And people who can't walk or bike can still park to go to the store.

by David Alpert on Jul 9, 2008 12:21 pm • link • report

@ Bianchi, unless this is in an historic district (which I don't think it is), what the owner wants to put on their property is their business provided they are abiding to zoning regs (and code). I agree it's a bad choice for that location, but it's their property and their choice. Eventually someday someone will come along and offer cash for that site to build something more appropriate.

by Lance on Jul 9, 2008 12:22 pm • link • report

This is preposterous. I don't think I could have designed a worse plan if I tried.

IMGoph, it's not really a one story building. It's a 2-story Walgreens with a parking garage underground. Not just a bad plan in that the upstairs area will be barely-used, but this can't be cheap to construct.

The draft does seem to suggest that a 15ft setback from Veazey Terrace is required by code, something that would prevent Walgreens from building out to the corners of the lot. But getting a variance, or putting in a cafe with outdoor seating next to the walgreens, seems a much better way around this than a 24f ramp to the underground garage.

The drive-in may actually be the least offensive part of the plan! (Not that I think pharmacies on top of metro stations will really benefit from or should require drive-thrus).

by Jason on Jul 9, 2008 12:23 pm • link • report

Lance:

If the elderly or infirm cannot walk or bike, they certainly should not be driving.

by DG-rad on Jul 9, 2008 12:25 pm • link • report

I used to live in Van Ness South right behind this, and now live up the street. To be honest I think most people who actually live here don't care about the building design, only that there will be a Wallgreen's putting pressure on the Two CVS' in the vacinity which are TERRIBLE. I can only hope it doesn't get held up...

by Local on Jul 9, 2008 12:32 pm • link • report

Lance, the Cathedral Pharmacy just down the street makes home deliveries.

Zoning reg's are currently in flux and therefore I absoultely have an opportunity and right to weigh in on a design.

by Bianchi on Jul 9, 2008 12:37 pm • link • report

A variance (or BZA process) with community support would certainly be better in terms of building to the lot line with more density, than what it proposed here.

This is simply awful on so many levels.

by William on Jul 9, 2008 12:51 pm • link • report

That design was never a good idea, but it was at least trendy and made sense in the 1980's and '90s when we still had cheap oil and hadn't yet rediscovered the value (both in terms of $/sq foot and also intangibles) of our urban spaces. Now that we're starting to pull our heads out of our rear ends with regard to land use (at least on the East Coast) there is no reason this plan should be allowed to go up anywhere, even in Olney or Leesburg. There have been ideas like New Urbanism that have been around for years now that supply concepts for development that enhance the urban environment and also allow people to park their car if they so choose to pay $4/gal (and rising by the day) to go to a little drug store that is also on top of a Metro. Think long-term and big picture, not only about your abililty to have another drug store to compete with the two that you already have. It's that kind of thinking that created Tysons Corner and destroyed Los Angeles. It's going to take long-term thinking if we want to get ourselves out of this energy dependence mess that is seriously threatening to bankrupt our nation.

by Cavan on Jul 9, 2008 12:57 pm • link • report

I think the oft-used phrase is "death by a thousand cuts". That's the process that turned what is becoming NoMa into a series of parking lots in an urban fabric. That is also the process that is turning it into a brand new lively urban section.

by Cavan on Jul 9, 2008 1:00 pm • link • report

I think the point is that it is PRIVATE property, and the owners should do what they see fit to use/maximize the space. It's not the government's business to impede them.

by Local on Jul 9, 2008 1:18 pm • link • report

Local:

Of course it's private property, but someone really has to tell Walgreen's that they are wasting their money. This complex, ring-like parking increases their expenses AND will depress their revenues. I don't know if Rust Orling are terrible architects or if Walgreen's team is just making htem do dumb things, but I think DDOT is doing both a great service by reviewing their project.

by tom veil on Jul 9, 2008 1:39 pm • link • report

Veil:

That's the beauty of the market, if they are idiots then they will fail. It's not DDOT's job to baby-sit them.

by Local on Jul 9, 2008 1:48 pm • link • report

Local: that market only exists in fantasy. The barriers to entry and transaction costs are way too high in the development market for mistakes to be corrected in anything less than a 50-year time horizon. Meanwhile, we'll be stuck with the negative externalities of this building harming the potential for a livable and walkable neighborhood.

Any serious market economist will agree that when there are externalities and/or high barriers to entry, simple market philosophy doesn't cut it in the real world.

by David Alpert on Jul 9, 2008 1:53 pm • link • report

Local,

In the meantime, our society will be stuck with another energy-sucking, waste of space. I'm sure they can make plenty of profit without such a horrible design... wait... I know they can! Somehow literally thousands of other drug stores around urban America make a good profit without so much parking and being set back from the road.

The correction will happen for them being idiots. In the meantime, though, the rest of us are stuck with their idiocy. That might have been acceptable when we weren't being sucked dry by energy commodities or seeing our climate change in front of our eyes, but not now.

by Cavan on Jul 9, 2008 1:56 pm • link • report

Local, Lance, Fortunately we still live in a democratically organized community and one persons/corporations freedom is not boundless - it runs into the freedoms/rights/desires/needs of others in the community.

by Bianchi on Jul 9, 2008 1:58 pm • link • report

The thought of DDOT babysitting anyone is 'interesting' considering the many in-house problems they have.

by Lance on Jul 9, 2008 2:08 pm • link • report

Bianchi, yes one person's/corporation's freedom is not boundless. However, one needs to recognize that one's desires for getting others to act as you'd like them to act, also cannot be limitless. I.e., You have to have a very very good reason for interfering with someone else's business with the justification of protecting the "greater good". For starters, you need to be sure you really are protecting the greater good and not just imposing your own desires on others. Like I said earlier, unless that lot is in a historic district (or the existing building landmarked), the law does not require that the design of that building meet any specific "greater good" other than what is codified in the zoning code or in other codes. YOU may want to see it made inaccessible to people with cars, YOU may want to see it built taller so that apartments can be built above it, YOU may want to see it do a number of things to meet YOUR wishes and desires. But as it stands, unless YOU are ready and able to shell out the bucks to develop it in that way, YOU don't get to have it YOUR way.

by Lance on Jul 9, 2008 2:20 pm • link • report

David,

Doesn't that argue for the government adding less barriers to entry, such as parking minimums/maximums and or zoning restrictions? Also not to be snarky, but does everyone who actually lives there really want a "walkable neighborhood" to the exclusion of driving convience? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. The fact remains that this type of artificial, non-market based governmental meddling nearly always has un-intended results down the road. My problem is when people try to impose their own worldview on a private property owner. Just a different viewpoint here.

by Local on Jul 9, 2008 2:21 pm • link • report

Local: I do think we should remove parking minimums, and that zoning rules should only apply if there's a good reason. But the main barriers to entry in this case are construction costs, not permitting obstacles. Until we have construction robots that can redevelop buildings cheaply and quickly (I look forward to that), we'll have these barriers.

Also, cities are responding to market pressures: many people want to move to a place that's walkable. But there aren't enough such places. Unfortunately, markets aren't building these places on their own, especially given that many areas like Falkland Chase in Silver Spring are getting historic preservation. And with a major positive externality of Metro, it makes it impossible to simply put a walkable community anywhere.

But let's say we lived in Celebration, Florida and the Walt Disney Company had a homeowner's association that could vote and make zoning decisions. Would it be wrong for the CDOT to disallow a project like that? Why is that different from the DC government?

by David Alpert on Jul 9, 2008 2:26 pm • link • report

David,

I understand the high barries in regards to construction, and I also disagree with historic preservation as being an artificial market barrier. My point is that we should let the market do it's thing. That major positive externality (metro) already pushes up price per square foot, so a wise developer would probably try to maximize his rentable area. Now that being said, when you disagree how a particular merchant is maximizing his or her resourses, the proper course is not for the government to intervene.

As to the Celebration analogy, if I'm following you corectly: A homeowners association is a different entity, usually set up with private deed restrictions that have to be transparant during any conveyence of property. This is very much unlike the government that is restricted (a bit) by the 5th Amendment. So a deed restriction would most likely be ok. If CDOT allowed that community to block development on a parcel of land that was not originally part of the development and subject to the restriction, it would most certainly not be ok.

by Local on Jul 9, 2008 2:40 pm • link • report

Lance,

You raise a good point about land use regulations for the greater good. The concept is well documented and justified by the courts through the powers of zoning. It is part of the police power granted to states, which in turn can delegate that authority to localities via enabling legislation (as most all have). Regardless, the means to regulate is more than legal.

What most object to with this Walgreens is what those regulations are. The content of the regulations is entirely different than the legal justification for the concept of regulating.

You're right that reasonable people will disagree on what is best. However, there's more than enough evidence to support a different vision of what is best and what should be regulated. Using that to change the zoning would shoot your whole argument down. The current zoning is built on the concept of protecting the general welfare of the city/population at large, and that concept is well supported. What I take issue with is the actual regulations, which, as with the times, change. They need to change, as what is codified now is no longer the best practice, and I would argue it is no longer in the best interests of the public at large.

Local,

This is not about the free market. Land use and real estate are (as I've noted above) some of the most heavily regulated areas of the economy, especially with regard to form. This is not a free market in operation.

Developments like these tend to follow the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is the one with the fewest zoning obstacles, thus the lowest costs to develop. When you add in those costs (which are substantial, given the level of regulation in land use matters), the final calculus is rarely about the abstract concept of the highest and best use, it becomes the path of least resistance.

For that reason, there needs to be an intervention - but it ought to be on a city-wide basis through zoning so crap like this cannot be built as a matter of right - i.e. we ought to change which path is the one of least resistance.

by Alex B. on Jul 9, 2008 3:27 pm • link • report

Alex B. We are in agreement. My point to Bianchi is that he doesn't have carte blanche to insist that this developer develop in the manner that he (Bianchi) would like to see him develop. He has to work through the existing system. In this specific case, the only option within the realm of possibility that Bianchi has of seeing this property developed as he would like to see it developed is for him to buy it outright ... or for him to persuade someone else to buy it who would be willing to develop it for Bianchi as he wants to see it developed. LONG TERM, Bianchi can work to change laws and regs, but I doubt any of that could occur fast enough to affect this particular construction proposal.

by Lance on Jul 9, 2008 3:41 pm • link • report

I believe that DDOT has additional powers in this area. Walgreens may not be able to use all of the curb cuts as a matter of right. I'm trying to get more information.

For one thing, the current parking minimums mandate more spaces. Therefore, Walgreens can't simply build exactly this plan. They might be able to build it with an extra underground level.

And even if we can't stop this one, it's totally reasonable to criticize the project because we are currently rewriting the zoning code. As I put in the original post, the draft new zoning has several provisions that would prohibit the worst of the issues with this proposal.

by David Alpert on Jul 9, 2008 3:54 pm • link • report

Alex,

- "Land use and real estate are (as I've noted above) some of the most heavily regulated areas of the economy, especially with regard to form. This is not a free market in operation. "

I absolutely agree with this statement. Isn't the end goal then to de-regulate here so that the path of least resistance is also the path the market demands. That's the problem with zoning in general. Todays good planning is tomorrow's impediment and we are stuck with yesterday's thinking.

by Local on Jul 9, 2008 3:57 pm • link • report

David,

Where can one get a draft copy of the new zoning regs?

by MarkM on Jul 9, 2008 4:02 pm • link • report

MarkM: All of the drafts are posted here as they are released, allowing for public comment. The recommendations from the Low & Moderate Density Residential group that they presented at the final meeting aren't out yet, but should be soon.

by David Alpert on Jul 9, 2008 4:13 pm • link • report

Local,

I agree, to an extent. I'd like to see the zoning simply refer to the plan, or have some legal mechanism in place to make that happen. There's still use for the regulations. I think some level of use regulation is needed, though I'd far prefer to see form based codes as the predominant guiding factor - especially in a city like DC.

by Alex B. on Jul 9, 2008 4:23 pm • link • report

Lance, I asked about options for petitioning given the current re-writing of the zoning codes. You interpreted that as my saying, "this should be designed my way", like a dictator? I'm the one who referred to the democratic process and the rights of all members of the community. You have offensively ascribed intent to my comments that was not there, and no one else who commented so far seemed to see. You also assume that my objection to the design is purely subjective and aesthic and that I have no well founded concern for the greater good.

by Bianchi on Jul 9, 2008 5:15 pm • link • report

With only one row of 8 pkg spaces on the surface, this is very different than there suburban stores. Is it me or are we pretending that people in the city don't drive. Plus it seems to me that this is a much less car intensive use than the gas station it's replacing.

by heynow on Jul 9, 2008 5:39 pm • link • report

Bianchi, I thought you said:

"Zoning reg's are currently in flux and therefore I absoultely have an opportunity and right to weigh in on a design."

Weighing in on proposed changes to zoning regs and weighing in on a design are two different animals. It takes years to get changes to the zoning regs in place. (For example, I remember first hearing about the Comprehensive Plan changes over 10 years ago. It only recently got completed. I think it's completed, at least.) Your weighing in on this specific design is limited to today's regs as I think you acknowledged. I'm not sure what good it'll do in regards to this particular design proposal to get Graham all spun up.

by Lance on Jul 10, 2008 8:17 am • link • report

Good luck with this one! We had a nearly identically-shaped site here in Syracuse and we fought and fought three years ago to get them to comply with our neighborhood's overlay district guidelines. Well, we got some of what we wanted - it's up against the sidewalk and the entrance is at the street instead of out back. But now they're back wanting a scrolling LED monument sign right near our own monument to our neighborhood's fallen heroes. If you get enough people to influence those who would waive the rules, you might get somewhere. Good luck!

by Lonnie on Mar 18, 2009 2:56 pm • link • report