Architecture
Increasing heights is not a simple proposition in Ward 7
Ward 7 is one part of Washington where the federal Height Act is not the main limit on the ability to add density to the urban fabric. More relevant constraints are the community's desire to preserve their neighborhoods' qualities and the lack of land suitable for high-density development.
Photo by Carl_C on Flickr.
The Height Act bases maximum heights on the widths of adjacent streets, to a maximum of 110 feet at the largest streets except for 130 on Pennsylvania Avenue downtown. (It has nothing to do with the height of the Capitol Dome, contrary to popular belief).
Earlier this month, Housing Complex reported that Mayor Vince Gray wants to relax the height limits East of the River and discussed the legislative challenges to implementation.
But the Height Act isn't the main driver of building height. In most parts of DC, zoning limits building heights far more than any federal law. Currently, the Marbury Plaza Complex is the only building in the Ward that even peers above the tree line, let alone approaches the federal limit.
Many long-time residents have expressed a desire to limit the height to 4-6 stories to preserve some of the best views in the city and the overall neighborhood harmony. ANC 7B, which includes the Hillcrest, Fort Davis, Penn-Branch, and Fairlawn neighborhoods, went as far as to pass a resolution to limit height at the Penn-Branch Shopping Center.
Putting the community concerns aside, there are other hurdles to denser development in the Ward. Although Ward 7 is one of the geographically larger wards, there are only a handful of areas that are even candidates for development into a higher density. Most of the land use in the ward is either single family homes, medium-density condos, neighborhood-scale commercial, or parkland owned by the National Park Service.
None of these areas are completely untouchable into the future. However, given the long time-frame to amass property from multiple owners or navigate the federal process to convert parkland into development, it is a safe bet that these areas will not become more intensively used within the next 20-30 years.
The next issue is that some of the larger low-density commercial areas ripe for redevelopment already have shovel-ready projects with maximum heights of 4-5 stories. For example, Mayor Gray's proposal would not affect Skyland Shopping Center or the Minnesota-Benning project located next to the new 5-story Department of Employment Services building. It also probably wouldn't affect the potential Walmart location in Capitol View located across the street from the Capitol Heights Metro Station.
After excluding all the previously mentioned areas as candidates for redevelopment into higher density, the only areas left are around the ward's three Metro stations. Even transit-oriented development around them is a challenge.
The obscure location of the Deanwood Metro Station and odd shape of the potential development parcels around it, limit higher-density development. If the newly built Deanwood Recreation Center & Library and middle school are excluded, the only non-residential land left is a small sliver on the east side the metro station and an odd shaped industrial parcel on the west side of station. Even if the city made significant improvements to the road network to improve access, there is still the challenge of trying to put high density on small parcels.
Deanwood Metro. Image from Google Maps. Click for interactive map.
Similar to Deanwood, Benning Road Metro Station abuts single family homes and is surrounded by oddly-shaped parcels. While Clarendon is an example of higher buildings next to low-density residential, the parcels around the that metro station aren't as narrow as at Benning Road. There is potential for redevelopment into a higher density. The question for this metro station is whether the existing height limit is adequate given the size of the lots.
Benning Road Metro. Image from Google Maps. Click for interactive map.
Of all three Metro stations, the Minnesota Avenue seems like it is the only one that would even be a potential candidate for additional height over the Height Act limit. While the development projects there are already built or shovel-ready, the strip-mall commercial areas across Minnesota Ave SE and Benning Rd SE could be more densely built.
This commercial area sits in a valley with only a handful of single-family homes along Benning Road in this area. They would lose their panoramic views, but they would maintain some views of the city. The rest of the land in that area is Fort Mahan Park. One concern would be the buildings dwarfing the homes along Clay Place NE on both side of Minnesota Ave. Putting higher buildings closer to Benning Road and stepping down the height closer to the homes could resolve this issue.
The Minnesota Ave Metro Station is wedged between I-295 and Minnesota Ave. On the other side of I-295 is the PEPCO Plant. According to PEPCO, it will decommission the plant in the near future. There are a significant number of environmental issues associated with that property that need to be considered, but there are not insurmountable.
Minnesota Avenue Metro. Image from Google Maps. Click for interactive map.
Regardless of the potential for additional height, the community has expressed that it doesn't want development at heights allowed under the Height Act. If Mayor Gray decides to move forward with this proposal, he will have to work very hard to move this through the legislative process while garnering the support of the community.
 | Veronica O. Davis, PE, has over 9 years of experience in planning transportation, urban areas, civil infrastructure, and communities. She co-owns Nspiregreen, LLC, an environmental consulting company in DC. She is also the co-founder of Black Women Bike DC, which strives to increase the number of Black women and girls biking for fun, health, wellness, and transportation.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
by goldfish on May 18, 2011 2:08 pm • link • report
The Ballston-Rossyln Corridor in Arlington had always been a commercial area along the old streetcar lines. Redevelopment with the coming of Metro was therefore easier there because they didn't have to displace as many homes; just old department stores surrounded by acres of parking lots. That's just not the case in much of the area in Wards 7 and 8.
by Adam L on May 18, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 18, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report
That said, I agree that Minnesota Avenue probably makes the most sense for higher-density development in Ward 7, not just because of the Metro and larger building parcels, but because you have the Anacostia Freeway (for access, but also because big companies can slap their name on the side of a building facing it and all the drivers can see it.)
Also, a spelling question from a recovering English major: What is "East of the River"? I think that if we're using "East of the River" as the specific name of a place, then it should be capitalized, but if we're using it as a descriptor, like "neighborhoods east of the river," then it definitely shouldn't be. Additionally, "ward" shouldn't be capitalized, unless you're referring to a specific ward, like Ward 7 (or the Lower Ninth Ward, etc.)
by dan reed! on May 18, 2011 2:30 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on May 18, 2011 2:35 pm • link • report
by Jerome on May 18, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
@Dan Reed.... Great point about taller buildings next to the freeway. When I was with the City of Alexandria that was part of our justification to put taller Class A office buildings closer to I-395 for the Landmark/Van Dorn plan.
@Alex B... I agree that Poplar Point is the obvious location, but this is also an opportunity to for explore development challenges in other areas East of the River, namely Ward 7.
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 18, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report
I infer you've a priori excluded the use of eminent domain to amass larger lots near transit? I know I'd hate being displaced from my home if I lived there, but there is a serious lack of affordable housing in DC.
by Steve S. on May 18, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report
It could very well be the "New Rosslyn"...
by John M on May 18, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report
And shouldn't we consider the kiss and ride lot at the MN Ave metro?
What about moving the stop to Benning at MN and connecting it directly to the street car line?
by Alex on May 18, 2011 4:14 pm • link • report
by movement on May 18, 2011 4:41 pm • link • report
@John M... The PEPCO site is a large chunk of land. However, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns of environmental issues with that property. Who would even want to take on that liability of building on that site? There would need to be major incentives.
@Alex... Possible tunnel under or bridge over I-295. The vacant land along Kenilworth Terr is Federal land. I could be wrong. The kiss and ride could be included, but it's a small narrow parcel. Where would you move it to? The feasible option is probably Minn-Benning where the purple box is located, but that is already a shovel ready project.
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 18, 2011 4:41 pm • link • report
When you rezone an area for planned-zone ultra high rises the market comes if there's a market (and there is).
Personally I liked the concept of a Parisian type multi-bridge residential development in place of the Anacostia Freeway along the river. Those elevated freeways have got to go and it's in the Comprehensive Plan that hey go. Skyscrapers are suited to a Metro location a little further out in DC.
by Tom Coumaris on May 18, 2011 5:40 pm • link • report
When combined with the stadium/Hill East development across the river and the streetcar, the city has an opportunity to create a major TOD corridor that literally bridges the river, and balances out the Orange Line's lopsided load.
by Payton on May 18, 2011 6:21 pm • link • report
The height limit seems to be the current panacea. It wouldn't suddenly make Minnesota Avenue or Poplar Point popular. The value of Minnesota Avenue is that it still has good buildings and a livable scale. Gentrification was beginning in the mid-00s and needed less overbuilding citywide to have moved forward. better surface transit connections and amenities like the riverwalk are things that would help there. Big buildings have turned up in places like Rosslyn, Bethesda, and the Dulles corridor that have excellent fundamentals and in places like Silver Spring whose recent successes show obvious potential despite decades of dumb ideas. That should suggest where a change in the limit would have its greatest impact.
by Rich on May 18, 2011 6:43 pm • link • report
The other "soft sites" that Veronica identifies appear to be about half as large (~40 acres), but one could also add in the low-density commercial along the south side of Benning as well as air rights over Metro's facilities, the railroad, 295, and even perhaps the schools. In short, there's quite a lot of land to work with there.
by Payton on May 18, 2011 6:51 pm • link • report
Indeed, the PEPCO site has superior transit access: its nearest corner is only 1000' from the Metro entrance, and the entire site is within 1/4 mile of the future Benning Road streetcar. Indeed, it looks to be more accessible than Poplar Point, and not subject to DCA flight path restrictions. Of course, it will need retail and office anchors in order to overcome its outside-favored-quarter location, but I wouldn't write it off just yet.
by Payton on May 18, 2011 7:26 pm • link • report
by Barry on May 18, 2011 10:18 pm • link • report
by Randall M. on May 19, 2011 8:16 am • link • report
But some streets are wider than 90 feet and thus the Act provides that buildings on a "business street" are limited to a maximum height of130 feet, except the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, between First and Fifteenth streets northwest, buildings are permitted an extreme height of 160 feet.
Monte
by Monte on May 19, 2011 8:41 am • link • report
Barry & Randall... Deanwood doesn't get the attention it needs. The road network to the metro station really needs to be improved. The City was supposed to do a study to look at making Minnesota a continuous road to the metro station. The other issue with Deanwood is there are these tiny shotgun homes (like you'd see on the Bayou) on large lots of land.
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 19, 2011 10:22 am • link • report
by goldfish on May 19, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report
by Barry on May 19, 2011 8:43 pm • link • report
People want to be in the popular areas. That's why the land is more expensive, and more expensive land justifies intensification. It's a mutually reinforcing circle.
Just because you can build higher elsewhere doesn't mean people will if there is no market demand for the space. It's like an enterprise zone. In return for locating in a less desirable area, you provide tax incentives. But tax incentives don't drive the majority of location choice decisions, and therefore, most enterprise zones have not had anywhere near the impact that was predicted.
Who's going to want to build a 20 story apartment building in W7 if you can't get it rented at rates high enough to pay off the building? The only way to drive office development in less desirable places is to get prelease to govt. tenants like the city or the Federal govt. The city would probably do something that dumb, as they have already destroyed most of the agglomeration benefits of having city agencies located in and around downtown, and instead are putting agencies in SW and other less transit- and business district-connected places. I can't see the federal govt. doing this. Hell, people at the EEOC didn't want to locate in NoMA because they were afraid of the crime there... And Noma is a couple blocks from Union Station.
by Richard Layman on May 21, 2011 11:39 am • link • report
by Barry on May 21, 2011 10:36 pm • link • report
by Karl on May 22, 2011 2:03 pm • link • report
I think folks who hold the line that "we don't want *that* kind of development" have an obligation to specify what sort of development they *do* want. At least then we can evaluate whether your alternative has any viability.
by oboe on May 23, 2011 9:27 am • link • report
Add a Comment