Delay scuttles affordable housing at 14th and U

Development

Delay scuttles affordable housing at 14th and U

by David Alpert • July 28, 2008 4:07 pm

In 2005, the Zoning Commission adopted, and the DC Council approved, an inclusionary zoning law. It gave developers the right to build just a little higher in exchange for including affordable units in the development. Then-Ward 4 Councilmember Adrian Fenty strongly supported this law, and used it as part of his platform for Mayor.

An older plan for 14th and U. Drawing from Eric Colbert Architects.

Since winning the election, however, Fenty has stalled. It's now almost a year after the rules were supposed to go into effect. Observers think certain developers, big funders of Fenty's who have the ear of Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Neil Albert, are pushing to water down the rules.

The delay is creating consequences on the ground. The proposed 14th and U development, which will replacing a parking lot and several ugly mid-century fast-food restaurants, originally planned for inclusionary zoning. But with the delay, they've reworked the project. Architect Eric Colbert and developer Bob Moore presented new plans to the Dupont Circle ANC last month with the top two floors gone, some extra mass in the back to make up for it, and no affordable housing units.

As gentrification spreads through our city, there's a real danger that we'll become a city of all wealthy white people and young people who are willing to live in very little space. Manhattan has this problem—more and more, only the very wealthy and crowded-in young professionals can afford to live there, while each year more affordable housing turns into market-rate, high-rent luxury condos and apartments.

Our neighborhoods are better with a mix of ages, races, and income levels. We don't know how to ensure healthy neighborhoods, but inclusionary zoning is one small piece of the answer. Each new building built without affordable units while the Fenty administration drags its feet is another small step closer to an urban monoculture.

7 comments

Tags: affordable housing, inclusionary zoning, Utopia project

Forty days and forty nights without inclusionary zoning (Mar 19, 2009)
Inclusionary zoning v. historic preservation? (Apr 15, 2008)
Still not inclusionary: Council blasts Fenty's inaction (May 1, 2009)
Inclusionary zoning in 3... 2... 1... (Aug 14, 2009)
Keep inclusionary zoning housing affordable (Sep 22, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Ugh. Equating gentrification with race is a mistake. That's the classic argument that's used in DC to shut down viewpoints, cast aspersions, etc. I remember lots of handwringing when the Starbucks was built at 13th and U, replete with newspaper articles making cracks about "Starbucks-guzzling yuppies." Years later, I've never seen more than a handful of white customers in that store.

Now maybe it's fair to say the African American or Ethiopian/Eritrean customers of that establishment still count as "Starbucks-guzzling yuppies." But if they do, let's stop presuming that gentrication is all about race.

by bigbie on Jul 28, 2008 4:37 pm • link • report

This is a difficult issue. One the one hand I think the inclusionary zoning works towards a noble goal of maintaining diversity rather than being "a city of all wealthy white people and young people who are willing to live in very little space". We also know that mass warehousing of the poor doesn't work. On the flip side, I'm not stoked about the biggest investment of my life (a near $400K condo) linking me financially to a sizable pool of individuals who are being relocated from housing projects. It's a big drag on the unit owners who paid market rate to pick up all the slack once the developer has transitioned the building fully to the HOA.

I would suggest that the inclusionary zoning affordable housing quotas are too high for new condos. That goal of 20-30% should max out at 10% for condos. Apartments could still aspire to that 30% figure.

by Paul on Jul 28, 2008 5:06 pm • link • report

"Affordable Housing" always amuses me because there will always be a margin where people who do have a job have slightly too much income to qualify for subsidized housing but can't afford the market rate for comparable housing. In effect, "affordable housing" punishes people who work for a living and didn't have more children than they can afford.

by Steve on Jul 28, 2008 5:15 pm • link • report

From what I've read, the affordable housing for developments such as this comes with strings. I.e., it's not a "give away". Those who are eligible to avail themselves of it have to maintain the property and cannot turn around and sell it. (There're rules governing how/when it can be sold.) It's akin to the homesteading with which low income people acquired farms out in the plains in the 19th century. It's a hand up (an opportunity) and not a hand out. I don't know all the details ... but it sounds like a good program ... provided it isn't used as an excuse to over-ride our historic district protections.

by Lance on Jul 28, 2008 6:07 pm • link • report

I do not agree with tying height limits which in my opinion should be kept with inclusionary zoning, which IMO we should also have. Now. Yesterday. You say we don’t know how to deal. Well, building taller buildings, creating oversized buildings where strong signals are sent to wealthy people that this is where they should move to just does not help. It’s kind of like socially reengineering a place; economic development over community development.

As far as linking gentrification and race, ok, maybe it is overemphasized, but it is most decidedly a factor. However the way we usually talk about it seems to repeatedly miss the point. We’d really have to get down into specifics about how people live, their fears, how people live with other races and a whole bunch of other stuff to have a broader, truer discussion. Not sure if this blog entry meant to get into all that or not.

I am half way through the New Republic article. So far my only comment is to object to 14th and U Streets being called a slum. There is a lot of pat short-hand that people use to describe Washington’s neighborhoods that often just does not ring true to me. (see Washington Post)

by Jazzy on Jul 28, 2008 7:56 pm • link • report

The article frames the issue of gentrification not so much based on race as on income, one poster will be glad to know. The condo building that allows you to drive your car up to your door is ridiculous. And of course what really happens to the urban poor, both to them directly and to society as a result is not discussed at all.

There was a good, detailed article written in The Atlantic Monthly about how now so much section 8 housing is in the suburbs not the cities. I recommend that one.

by Jazzy on Jul 28, 2008 8:29 pm • link • report

Considering how much Section 8 housing is in the 14th Street corridor north of U street, U Street isn't necessarily in danger of becoming homogenized.

by Stating the Obvious on Jul 29, 2008 10:54 pm • link • report