Preservation
Historic board stands up to mid-rise opposition
DC's Historic Preservation Review Board approved concept plans for the Hine project on Capitol Hill last month, making a clear statement that while they'll push to improve the quality of development, they're not going to bow to neighbors' demands to substantially shrink it down.
8th Street elevation. Image from the Stanton/EastBanc.
Historic review can greatly improve many development projects. Property owners sometimes want to do things cheaply or just use visual styles that clash with a surrounding neighborhood. Clever design can making a building look less large and imposing without actually shrinking its size very much.
But some people, especially those who show up to HPRB meetings, tend to focus most on the overall height of a building. Their house is 2 stories, and therefore no building should be more than 3 stories. Something more than 4 will "destroy the neighborhood."
A group of Hine neighbors was unalterably opposed to anything more than 5. At Dumbarton Oaks, 4 stories is "shocking."
Developers often try to accommodate resident objections and make their projects smaller. In Brookland, the Colonel' Brooks Tavern project lost 9 residences but opponents are still opposed. Hine lost 13 between March and April. There's a constant drumbeat of news of projects being scaled back.
Each time, that means fewer people can live in our great city.
Everyone else loses when this happens. We have fewer taxpaying residents to shore up the budget. We have fewer people to patronize shops and restaurants. Fewer people can ride the bus to justify more frequent service. Housing is more expensive because of limited supply.
And when resistance is too great, projects simply don't get built and lots stay vacant, or end up with less desirable uses. Because a zoning board limited a bed and breakfast at 16th and Riggs to 6 rooms instead of 10 in 2001, it couldn't stay profitable and will become a chancery instead, which adds less to the neighborhood than a stream of visitors who will eat in restaurants and go to museums and shows.
Fortunately, many of our current HPRB members recognize this. They tweaked Hine and pushed for a better design but ultimately didn't try to substantially shrink the project. The inclusionary zoning law provides a development bonus to create affordable housing, and HPRB chair Catherine Buell said that the current board recognizes the importance of allowing properties to use this density. Their role isn't to lop off several floors entirely.
HPRB isn't the zoning board, as former chair Tersh Boasberg was fond of saying. If zoning says a 5-story building is appropriate, it's not the role of HPRB to say that they think 3 stories should be the maximum. It is their role to make sure it fits into the historic district. Some, though, argue that "fitting in" means "being no taller than some of the shorter buildings in."
Mayor Gray was about to make 4 appointments to HPRB, but received strong pushback against some of his nominees. Now, he still has to fill those spots and has to find even more as another wave of members' terms are ending.
It's critically important to find people who respect this balance, who want to make projects look better and feel more compatible but who also recognize the importance of actually getting vacant sites developed, accommodating more residents in DC, and taking advantage of the very limited heights that our zoning and federal laws allow.
These decisions don't just affect surrounding neighbors or architects. They determine the very direction of DC, its budget, its housing affordability, and its ability to become more self-sufficient.
 | 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
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
by Gavin on Jul 11, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report
This is absolutely how it should remain, else NIMBY's will use HPRB as a battering ram to affect matter-of-right development.
by Bob See on Jul 11, 2011 1:14 pm • link • report
by Logan Res on Jul 11, 2011 1:20 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Jul 11, 2011 1:24 pm • link • report
There is a similar situation with a building at Champlain and Florida that the Intowner has a story on this week:
http://www.intowner.com/2011/07/09/adams-morgan%e2%80%99s-reed-cooke-neighborhood-confronted-with-a-third-controversial-planned-unit-development-project-plan/
I live 2 blocks away from that one so I’m not happy about the effect this will have on parking either, but I’m not much of a whiner either so I’ll either deal with it, move, or turn my backyard into a parking pad like my neighbors have.
by AdMo on Jul 11, 2011 1:45 pm • link • report
Labeling them "antis" is real snarky, but this is just another case of "progressives" trying to spend other people's money.
by TGEoA on Jul 11, 2011 1:59 pm • link • report
by Dan Miller on Jul 11, 2011 2:02 pm • link • report
But it's Jim Graham in action, so I expect it will all go through for the developers, and that it will end up as high and ugly as U St. Yeah for progress!
by greent on Jul 11, 2011 2:03 pm • link • report
I said nothing of the sort. Nice straw man though.
by TGEoA on Jul 11, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report
Not really. It just means that not everyone can live in the already popular parts of town .... and in So doing, undo the very things that make these urban areas popular .... such as not having to live in the shadow of a too high building. There's plenty of places left to build.
by Lance on Jul 11, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report
So, while the homeowners can't upgrade their windows to 20th (much less 21st) century building standards, or get a building permit without having to go through the extended DCRA permitting process, developers can come in with cheap exterior materials and maximize their profit at the expense of existing homeowners.
We have, once again in DC, an example of the rule of man, not the rule of law.
And to address the "density" issue, many neighborhoods would benefit from higher density dwelling AND having a new mix of residents to augment other declines. To make a societal argument on an already high density area such as Eastern Market is just a money grab.
by ahk on Jul 11, 2011 2:22 pm • link • report
DC is not NY, Chicago or San Francisco. Wanna live in a high-rise world: move there (or move back there, more than likely).
by greent on Jul 11, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on Jul 11, 2011 2:31 pm • link • report
http://emmcablog.org/2011/07/10/hill-center-neighbors-detail-goals-of-liquor-license-protest/
Too bad there's no organized opposition to such knee-jerk opposition.
by oboe on Jul 11, 2011 2:36 pm • link • report
"So, while the homeowners can't upgrade their windows to 20th (much less 21st) century building standards"
Wrong. It's done all the time.
"We have, once again in DC, an example of the rule of man, not the rule of law."
This is a zoning item. It's not up to the HPRB. Why are you commenting if you don't comprehend that?
by Bob See on Jul 11, 2011 2:42 pm • link • report
What it would do is gradually erode the charm of many older DC neighborhoods, as well as the quality of life--by reducing the amount of available parking and probably increasing the amount of noise.
I'm always amazed by the hypocrisy on this site; if someone complains about bus noise, crime, panhandling, or noise, the groupthink urbanists crow in unison "You knew what you were getting into when you moved to a city!" But when someone wants to keep the city the way it is in some way, how dare they!?
Not everyone can live everywhere they want. DC still has a few beautiful, quiet neighborhoods, with great old architecture, large trees, and a sense of tranquility. They should be preserved.
by JB on Jul 11, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
I absolutely hate that line of reasoning. Why don't YOU move to the open fields of Montana because that's what YOU want, right? Open areas, low heights, great view shed, complete car dependency...
If you live in DC proper, you live here and love it because density has allowed businesses and communities to thrive, all accessible with different and affordable modes of transportation.
You can't (and shouldn't) stop growth. Instead of creating a blockade, encouraging human scale development is the better way to go. I’d argue there are few people on this website that want Manhattan style skyscrapers in DC.
13 floors is not 60 floors.
by cmc on Jul 11, 2011 2:46 pm • link • report
What makes them popular is that they're dense enough to support a lot of stuff. Adding more density means they'll be able to support even more stuff.
And let's not be disingenuous about tall buildings. 5 stories is not a tall building.
by BeyondDC on Jul 11, 2011 2:47 pm • link • report
Because the premise of a static city is incorrect. Cities are by nature dynamic places. DC is growing, and if we don't adapt to that growth and evolve with it, we put the very vitality that makes the city a great place at risk.
Not everyone can live everywhere they want. DC still has a few beautiful, quiet neighborhoods, with great old architecture, large trees, and a sense of tranquility. They should be preserved.
And what in these cases is being destroyed? The Hine school project will replace a decrepit 60s era building and re-knit the urban fabric of that part of the city. The Wallach development isn't actually touching any of those historic rowhouses.
by Alex B. on Jul 11, 2011 2:49 pm • link • report
Yeah, but you see, this project is well under that. In fact, it's a lot shorter than those old Connecticut Ave apartment buildings that abut on the 2-story houses behind them.
These anti-neighbor views are worse than what people accuse the historic preservation people of. They're the ones who want to mothball the city to their preference.
by Bob See on Jul 11, 2011 2:50 pm • link • report
No, actually, you did say just that. No strawman involved.
by Renney on Jul 11, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report
The traditionally optimal mixed-used complex used all over Europe and in the American west is stick or block buildings which can go up cheaply and rapidly to about five stories. These types of buildings do not require the massive underground structures which seven story concrete and steel mid-rises do. Those underground structures always become massive parking garages.
Concrete and steel mid-rises take up to two years to complete and in the meantime adjoining streets, bike lanes, sidewalks and neighboring buildings are disrupted. Stick or block five-stories go up in about six months.
The expensive-to-build mid-rises result in much more expensive housing units. While they may attract high income tenants possibly paying higher property taxes, higher income occupants less often pay DC income tax.
Since very large corporations build mid-rises, their leasing departments are usually familiar only with national chains and you get a lot of drugstores and fast food outlets. Five story stick or block buildings are usually done by local developers and can often incorporate existing local restaurants etc.
The concrete cube mid-rises all nearly always clones of successful designs done in the suburbs numerous times. All neighborhoods start looking alike, like Crystal City. Local developers more often understand the character of different neighborhoods and work with smaller local architects.
The new Buzzuto development going up next to the Home Depot center on Rhode Island is a good example of all these factors. That type project would fit anywhere in the residential areas of the city.
How expensive disruptive car-infested projects are called smart growth here amazes this die-hard urbanist. I don't see the slight increase in square footage from five to seven stories in these projects worth the negatives.
But then I'm not in the Let's Make DC Another Crystal City coalition.
by Tom Coumaris on Jul 11, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Jul 11, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
"If you live in DC proper, you live here and love it because density has allowed businesses and communities to thrive, all accessible with different and affordable modes of transportation."
Yes, that would be the definition of a city.
But whose to say that certain areas have not reached their denisty limit? If the only way you can build is up, and the only way you can do that is to exceed the limits allowable... then the limit has been met and you are shit-outta-luck. (Florida Ave here, not the Hines bldg).
You can't (and shouldn't) stop growth
So I guess you would have voted to put freeways throughout all of DC then. Or would you have stopped that growth? Would you be in favor of widening 16th St. to be 3 lanes each way - or would you be opposed to that growth?
I agree, encouraging thoughtful growth is wonderful. But what does human scale mean?
13 floors is not 5 floors, either. I do prefer to see the sun. I do not have to live in the wilderness to prefer that. I am in favor of growth. I am not in favor of all growth.
by greent on Jul 11, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
I assume that means you live where you want to. Why don't others get that privilege? And what's the criteria for deciding who can choose where they live?
by dan reed! on Jul 11, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report
what a lame arguement. There is plenty of available land and property -- not all of it in a prime location across the street from Metro. No one is excluded from living in DC -- they may be excluded from the most desirable areas... sort of like how I'm excluded from Georgetown because I can't afford it.
by anon on Jul 11, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report
Re: Windowss
It's done all the time, after you go and grovel at their once a month meetings where they decide whether you're eligible or not. Again, rule of man, not law. If it was a simple, clear and concise standard, they wouldn't need a "board" to decide if it met the standard. It either would, or it wouldn't and you could take care of it at DCRA in an hour. They'd also approve Energy Star rated reflective coatings and multi-pane windows.
If there was a standard, you wouldn't get modernist houses with stainless steel front doors approved in the middle of historic districts. You'd also probably have higher permit compliance if you stopped the charade.
I'm all for historic preservation, or not, but having ad hoc historic preservation at the whim of a council of elders is as stupid as it sounds.
by ahk on Jul 11, 2011 3:10 pm • link • report
I assume that we build lots of concrete & steel buildings, because that's what our construction industry is set up to do. Block-based designs are very rarely seen in the US.
Multi-unit wooden buildings are a bad idea for obvious reasons (although there's one going up in Brookland IIRC), and we simply don't have much experience building concrete block structures (which are notoriously difficult to make attractive, BTW).
That all being said, I think that David and the HPRB are absolutely correct here. Nobody is talking about demolishing a group of short, historic rowhouses.
We're talking about removing a hideously ugly, tall, and abandoned 1960s school building, and replacing it with residences in a neighborhood that is in high demand.
The project should be pushed to adopt better designs and materials. It's ugly as a sin, and is indeed imposing in its current iteration. However, 4-5 stories is FINE.
Oh, and screw parking minimums for this project. You could not ask for a location better suited to public transit and/or walking.
(And I say this all as a person who supports the height limit.)
by andrew on Jul 11, 2011 3:20 pm • link • report
Then you should definitely support transferring some of those basic qualities to other parts of the city. The appeal of a neighborhood like capitol hill is not the sheer allure of capital hill but rather the nature of the built enviornment there, a well planned street grid that is easily bikable, and acess to transit. If you want less pressure on a neighborhood like that then make sure there is oppurtunity for other neighborhoods to develop those qualities. Until then its gonna be neighborhoods like capital hill that retain an inordinate amount of demand.
by Canaan on Jul 11, 2011 3:30 pm • link • report
But this is about attracting 6 figure salaried singles from Clarendon, not about mixed income and equality. Oh, and profit margin for a developer.
Such logical BS.
And with regards to the Hill Center, the city and the developers did a bait and switch on the "intended use". They sold it as a community center, and now they want to use it was a private events center and party it up until 2am. x
by Glo on Jul 11, 2011 3:35 pm • link • report
But those six figure salaries are moving in anyway.
The area is in demand - in fact, demand exceeds supply, which means the price will go up. That will erode any affordability that you have over time unless you also add supply (i.e. add density in already urban places) to help meet that demand.
by Alex B. on Jul 11, 2011 3:40 pm • link • report
highway/freeway expansion isn't growth at all, unless we start counting citizens by the number of cars they own. In my personal opinion, highway/freeway expansion should be absolutely last resort if all other options don't work (which is rarely the case). Wider roads = more cars (induced demand).
DC has seen a revitalization because people actually want to live here. People are moving to the city and starting families here. That's the kind of growth I was talking about and I'm pretty sure you were aware of that fact.
by cmc on Jul 11, 2011 3:50 pm • link • report
by Jerome on Jul 11, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report
I moved here for college and stayed here because I love this town. I am tired of the "families" mantra. It's lovely families are moving back.. but families lived here all along. Are there hard numbers on the supposed increase in the number of families that moved into/stayed in the district over the past 30 years or are we all just anecdotally discussing some vague increase? It was not about families moving in... or is is about families not moving out?
DC has seen a revitalization because people actually want to live here.
Not quite. More truthfully: DC has seen a revitalization because people with more money and education actually want to live here.
Growth in a city to me is buildings and infrastructure. I am not opposed to Hines size (actually, I have little opinion about it as it is not close to my ward), while the Adams Morgan growth greatly concerns me.
by greent on Jul 11, 2011 4:21 pm • link • report
Hmm. I smell a straw man. Frankly, I think all these problems should be addressed in the urban environment. For the longest time, "the city" was just considered the place where quality of life was *supposed* to be shitty. I don't see that as a core component of "urbanism" though. Much less something that "groupthink urbanists crow in unison".
Why not have a debate with the real positions of real individuals rather than some composite boogeyman?
by oboe on Jul 11, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report
I actually support highway/freeway expansion, but only because that sort of "dumb growth" works to further deepen the contrast between urban living and exurban living. So long as the suburbs do a reasonably good job of retrofitting themselves to the tastes of the twenty- and thirty-somethings, the city is at a disadvantage. So long as they keep punching themselves in the brain, the city (both DC proper and the inner burbs) will continue to prosper.
by oboe on Jul 11, 2011 4:32 pm • link • report
It's done all the time, after you go and grovel at their once a month meetings where they decide whether you're eligible or not."
Funny, I've pulled plenty of permits for window replacements in historic districts, citing efficiency as a motivating factor, and not once went through that. Permits were approved by HPO staff on the spot.
How many permits have you gotten?
"If there was a standard, you wouldn't get modernist houses with stainless steel front doors approved in the middle of historic districts."
Building a new house in a historic district doesn't mean being required to clone the existing style. If that were the case, the bitching would be ten-fold, and rightly so.
by Bob See on Jul 11, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report
Concerning families, I would argue it is an increasing number of new families NOT moving into the suburbs in fear of cities. I believe it was last year that DCPS saw an increase in enrollment, the first increase in a rather long time. A slow but sure sign that families are starting to invest back into the city.
Family growth is important metric. The young single professional may spend a lot of his/her time at bars and restaurants while a family may be more inclined to be concerned about safe playgrounds, community and cultural centers, and educational opportunities. While I'm sure there is much crossover, both concerns are important to the vitality of a city.
Let’s not forget that some of the wealthiest and most educated areas of the country are right outside of DC. The majority of these people work in DC
If growth in a city is a matter buildings and infrastructure, then you would agree that DC has to have a variety of housing stock to accommodate different economic status, family size, and a variety in wants and needs. The density of an apartment building supports the local businesses that the detached single family house also enjoys.
by cmc on Jul 11, 2011 4:58 pm • link • report
Wallach development isn't actually touching any of those historic rowhouses.
The proposed height will affect that whole street ... drastically. Afternoon light will be affected for all neighbors on that street (and those on the north side of T Street in that block), and privacy will be severly affected in the backyards of more than a handful of houses. Wallach Street won't be charming, human-scale Wallach Street anymore. It'll be a literal appendage to a tall building more appropriate to a dense suburban center like Crystal City, than to a 19th century neighborhood 'where everyone knows your name'. Honestly, if you think about ... what most attracts people to neighborhoods like these is that they really are 'small towns in the city'. Living in them you enjoy the best of both worlds of both 'being in the middle of everything' AND 'knowing all your neighbors and grocers and professional people, etc.' That's really the magic of places like Dupont and Logan and Capital Hill. And that's why everyone wants to live there. But if you start building buildings that are more above the neighborhood than a part of these neighborhoods, they're going to lose the very thing that makes them special.
by Lance on Jul 11, 2011 5:04 pm • link • report
So you can read minds now? Guess what I'm thinking
by TGEoA on Jul 11, 2011 5:10 pm • link • report
"If growth in a city is a matter buildings and infrastructure, then you would agree that DC has to have a variety of housing stock to accommodate different economic status, family size, and a variety in wants and needs."
Yep. But I don't get the point to this. I don't see many single family homes being built in DC. I see many being re-done.. but not new ones built. I don't see any affordable apartments being built, do you? I don't think a new building (again the Florida bldg in Adams Morgan) need to be given an pass so the developers can double the height limit of their pretty new buidling in the neighborhood. So... that variety is not being built or if it exists is not being maintained.
And please - What does human scale mean? If I understood what that meansm, I might even agree with you more (except I will be forever in favor of a strict height limit), even when that limit turns DC into a rich-mans republican playpen.
by greent on Jul 11, 2011 5:13 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 11, 2011 5:24 pm • link • report
http://dccranktank.com/2011/04/15/argument-for-a-capitol-hill-historic-district-takeover/
by goldfish on Jul 11, 2011 5:29 pm • link • report
Ahem. And how tall is the building that's currently on the site?
Comments like this undermine the debate, and are teetering perilously close to outright lies. We are talking about replacing an abandoned 4 story building with a 5 story building that will more closely match the architecture of the surrounding residences.
If your only option is to lie and attempt to derail the debate, the project will likely be built, and opposition voices for the many legitimate issues that need to be protested will lose credibility.
by andrew on Jul 11, 2011 5:35 pm • link • report
http://hineschool.com/sites/default/files/June_15_HPRB_book_compressed.pdf
page 12 shows 8th street views.
by Bob See on Jul 11, 2011 5:36 pm • link • report
So, the 14th and Wallach building will make it so the people on Wallach Pl won't be able to meet their neighbors?
Come on. You can do better than that.
@Goldfish
The Hine site is not at all like a pop-up. Pop-ups break up the rhythm of extant streetwalls. This creates a streetwall from whole cloth. Completely different.
by Alex B. on Jul 11, 2011 5:39 pm • link • report
by Read Scott Martin on Jul 11, 2011 5:46 pm • link • report
by Read Scott Martin on Jul 11, 2011 5:57 pm • link • report
by William on Jul 11, 2011 6:02 pm • link • report
With regards to some aspects such as height, the zoning in a designated historic district is not always supportive of the legal goals of that historic designation. And so they come in conflict, and the historic preservation goals trump the zoning codes in some respects.
For example, when zoning was established in the 1950s in DC, the thought was that the core city would be transformed into a 'modern' metropolis with elevated highways running through and around it, feeder roads letting traffic rise up to and down from these elevated highways, and people living in 10 story 'towers in the park' fashion. And because of this formal planning, the zoning was written to support this vision. (And similarly streets such as 15th and 17th in Dupont got one-wayed and widen were needed to become entry and exit ramps to the coming elevated highways.)
But the elevated highways and the 'towers in the park' never happened. And instead, in the latter part of the 20th century many of these areas which had survived this period got designated instead as federal historic districts aimed at preserving their late 19th century/ early 20th century characters. And in designating them federal historic districts the defining elements of these historic districts got formally documented during the application process. So, for example, Dupont Circle's defining elements might have included something like 'mainly 2 and 3 story rowhouses interspersed with larger mansions in the Italianate and Queen Anne styles built from 1880 through to 1930'.
Of course this is very different from the planning vision that guided the 1950s zoning. Most of Dupont was at one point zoned for 10 story buildings because of this 1950s vision. Some areas have been downzoned to reflect the realities of the blocks which are more along the lines of 2 or 3 stories as exemplified by the mainly intact rowhouses and lining them. Others remain at the 10 story (or other) limit inspite of the fact that the streets in that zone are nowwheres near that height. And it's in these cases where historic preservation is supposed to trump zoning.
So, yes, although I don't know the particulars of this case, it sounds like it was at least reasonable to think that putting in a massive 5 story building next to 2 story rowhouses might conceivably require the invocation of the historic district's protection. Apparently though for whatever reasons, the HPRB didn't deem it necessary to invoke these protections. And that's why the HPRB exists. It's not our enemy. It's our friend. :)
by Lance on Jul 11, 2011 8:36 pm • link • report
Design and "compatability", sure. Height? A zoning issue.
by William on Jul 11, 2011 8:55 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jul 11, 2011 9:50 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on Jul 11, 2011 10:34 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 11, 2011 10:35 pm • link • report
Totally and completely incorrect, Lance. You are wrong, here. It WAS clear that it was compatible. There were just some dishonest budybodies who wanted to stop the project but were fiercely and clearly shut down by the HPRB.
TGEoA was blatantly arguing that the government should intervene to accelerate property value runups of incumbent by keeping supply artificially constrained by government fiat in opposition to those who wanted to move there.
by Tyro on Jul 11, 2011 11:27 pm • link • report
These neighbors bought their houses years before anyone even mentioned closing the school, BTW. Imagine the changes: a street populated by energetic 11-14 year-olds, that will be replaced by empty-nesters that can afford to buy these expensive condos. The kids were very well behaved for the most part; the marching band used to practice in the parking lot. Now there will be quiet, older couples walking to tony restaurants. The kids are more lively.
@Bob See: thanks for the link. The point of view in the upper-left drawing of p. 12 is from the center of the street and does not show what you would see as you look at the building from across the street, and therefore minimizes the out-of-scale building height. In drawing in the upper-right hand corner is the view from further up the street and employs a wide-angle perspective that again minimizes the height. Neither view shows what you would see if you stood across from it at 8th & C streets. These views are deceptive.
@Alex: The "whole cloth" is the 2-story building height that exists along the entire length of 8th St, from Florida down to the Navy Yard. This will be the only building that exceeds that -- and it will "pop-up" far more than the hideous one I linked to.
@ David C: The mechanic at that gas station was competent and had good rates. No one complained because we all could see that he was cashing out for his retirement. But like Frager's, that gas station held was far more useful for the neighborhood than the condos.
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 3:41 am • link • report
What buildings? The newer ones, along Pennsylvania Ave both closer to and further way from the capital, are all distinctly shorter.
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 3:55 am • link • report
by Thayer-D on Jul 12, 2011 6:48 am • link • report
You're completely wrong about windows in historic districts. Replacements are approved all the time by staff. No one has to go to the Board for a windows permit. It's a staff permit.
While the historic regulations are fungible about complex questions like how to make new buildings fit into old neighborhoods, their regulations about windows are quite specific and clear. Look up DCMR 10C, Chapter 23 (http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/ChapterHome.aspx?ChapterNumber=10-C23).
You'll find about 20 pages of standards and criteria about what windows need to be preserved, what windows can be replaced, and how to make them fit in.
It's only hard if you want it to be hard--that's what she said--which is a whole other issue.
by crin on Jul 12, 2011 7:34 am • link • report
Isn't there still a height limit in DC? What is it? 10-12 floors? If I recall the controversy started in the late 1800s when The Cairo was built in what is now Dupont Circle. Nothing can be taller than the Capitol dome correct?
In any case, as others have pointed out-a 12 or 14 fl bldg is by no means a 150 fl skyscraper. Not even close.
When you look at cities like Richmond, that are able to have large 20-30 fl high rises and still be able to preserve charming row house districts like The Fan and Cherry Hill and Shockoe Bottom with lower heights, I don't really think this is that big of an issue.
People are (what a shock!) overreacting. A 5 fl bldg will not destroy a neighborhood.
by LuvDusty on Jul 12, 2011 8:56 am • link • report
So you think my neighbors and I would have been fine if he'd built anything there? Because he was a good mechanic? The point here is that the Butterfield House has not destroyed the neighborhood, has not lowered housing values, has not been an eyesore, has not made parking impossible, has not caused a loss in privacy, has not turned the neighborhood into a dark canyon or anything else that has caused even a squeak of protest - even though a 5 story condo replaced what was mostly pavement. So replacing a story building with a 5 story one, should have even less impact.
If we can't add density at Hine - a 4 story building, on top of a Metro station in the commercial heart of Capitol Hill, then we can't add density anywhere.
by David C on Jul 12, 2011 9:34 am • link • report
What buildings? The newer ones, along Pennsylvania Ave both closer to and further way from the capital, are all distinctly shorter.
I'm talking about the proposed building at 14th and Wallach in NW there. There are multiple projects being discussed in this thread.
Now, with regard to Hine:
Along 8th St., the old school building is set back quite far. The new one will be right on the sidewalk. It is not comparable to what is there now.
No, this is incorrect. The Hine development will follow the exact same property line as the existing structures further north on 8th St SE do. It will not be right up against the sidewalk
The "whole cloth" is the 2-story building height that exists along the entire length of 8th St, from Florida down to the Navy Yard. This will be the only building that exceeds that -- and it will "pop-up" far more than the hideous one I linked to.
The entire length of 8th - except for the parts that have taller buildings.
Look, all of the massing in this plan is focused along Pennsylvania Ave and facing the Metro Plaza - given the width of PA Ave and the plaza, that's entirely appropriate.
The 8th Street facade is, more or less, no higher than the extant Hine building. The setback is essentially the same.
Thayer-D brings up a great point - the massings here are entirely appropriate. This is not a project that's replacing any existing urban fabric, it's an underutilized site with a crappy building on it now. We can all argue about aesthetics of the design itself, but the massing of the structure is perfectly fine.
There are plenty of 3 and 4 story structures further south along 8th St SE, as well as further north.
Also, the argument about school kids is irrelevant - the decision to close the school and move it to a different campus has nothing to do with the options for redevelopment of the site.
by Alex B. on Jul 12, 2011 9:37 am • link • report
Precisely what building on 8th St south of Pennsylvania Ave is higher than 2 stories? I can think of only two, the Shakespeare practice space and the one on the corner with Dunkin Donuts. These structures are over 100 years old; otherwise the buildings are all one or two stories. Eighth St north of Pennsylvania is two-story residential. These buildings are two stories even in the commercial parts, such as where it crosses H St.
The facade of the proposed 8th St residential should be the same height as all other residential buildings on 8th St.
Some may complain that the neighbors are spending the developer's money. That is not true; rather, this proposal diminishes the value of the other property in the neighborhood.
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 11:43 am • link • report
Never mind the multitude of tall historic apartment buildings which are all over DC. They're not segregated into their own buffered enclaves, they're next to townhouses and even detached houses.
I wonder if the people complaining about this even know DC, or they're simply trying to work themselves up into a frenzy to make it an issue...
by Bob See on Jul 12, 2011 11:48 am • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 11:57 am • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
by Bob See on Jul 12, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report
by Bob See on Jul 12, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report
It's not far taller. The height limit in DC is 10 stories. This building is 5 stories, a few stories higher than nearby buildings, though in a commercial area right on top of a metro station.
by JustMe on Jul 12, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 12:23 pm • link • report
I'd agree with you on most points on Butterfield, except it absolutely IS an eyesore. It's a terribly overmassed building for the space that really whiffs on design. It bursts from its small footprint. It's not overly dense in a way that's damaging to the neighborhood scale -- it's overly dense in a way that compromises it aesthetically. I wouldn't want to live in such a building, and I generally am unimpressed by looking at it too.
and I would want anyone to steal my natural light. If the light is due to an empty lot, it's not reasonable to expect it to stay empty for that reason. But if someone builds it in a way that hogs every inch of space, dwarfs it's surroundings, and doesn't respect appropriate scale, I'd bitch about it too. I don't think the Hine design does that, although I think the neighbors would be happier with more height AND more setback from the street.
by anon on Jul 12, 2011 12:36 pm • link • report
Butterfield looks taller than the neighboring buildings to me.
by David C on Jul 12, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report
Eye of the beholder I guess.
by David C on Jul 12, 2011 12:44 pm • link • report
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!! TEAR IT DOWN!!!
by Bob See on Jul 12, 2011 12:50 pm • link • report
But just because a bad design was approved does not mean that same mistake should be repeated elsewhere.
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 12:58 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 12, 2011 1:02 pm • link • report
by Thayer-D on Jul 12, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report
They are all car drivers, and many of them have multiple cars and yet they scorn using Metro at all [ it is somehow beneath their dignity- I have heard this over & over] . The new proposals are good- and we could even go up 10 stories as far as Im concerned. This place is astride a Metro station where rail should be priority and NOT the car. I'm waiting for one of the historic people to suddenly declare old Hines to be "historic" and then we will be told is represents some pivotal piece of modernism or some other excuse. Just like with that horror on 16th street that the Christain Science people want to be rid of.
As for the new young people moving into DC- this is awesome and excellent news. It will have the effect of lowering our taxes- as most of these folks are affluent and do not use social services; we will be called less often for the onerous jury dury torture we must face every two years; crime will disappear gradually; and new vitality will be the norm. These old lawyer type boomers and elderly NIMBYs are soon to be in the great above anyway- they are not going to have to live with these decisions. They need to move on to that great nursing home- or out to Herndon or to Florida.
by anti-NIMBY on Jul 12, 2011 2:27 pm • link • report
The building would look better if it were 5.5 stories and let the roof hang more naturally on the structure.
The scale is just fine for the area - Pennsylvania is a tremendously wide ROW.
My only other criticism is in how the structure meets the ground. Butterfield is OK for a residential building, but the lack of level entry with the 1st floor precludes any eventual retail use in the structure, which is a disappointment. Again, somewhat of a sop to height critics.
by Alex B. on Jul 12, 2011 2:42 pm • link • report
I don't understand. Is someone trading me ice cream for parking? Because if so, I'm in.
by David C on Jul 12, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report
by Frances on Jul 12, 2011 3:15 pm • link • report
Those "mostly senior NIMBY's" know you young newcomers care nothing about the city and the people you found when you got here and only about your narrow version of an urban utopia where cars are unwelcome and people who aren't like yourselves are ignored if not driven out.
Remember this: those "mostly senior NIMBY's" - and the Black residents of "your" city - are the very people who held DC together when your parents (and THEIR parents)wanted nothing to do with it.
They were there before you and they will be there long after the neo-urbanist fad has played itself out.
by not a newbie on Jul 12, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report
I was born here in DC and have lived here my entire life
by anti-NIMBY on Jul 12, 2011 3:44 pm • link • report
A new system of real histroci preservation is needed to separate it out from these busy bodied old farts and pernicious selfish entities that create a bad environment in DC. There has to be a better way.
by anti-NIMBY on Jul 12, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report
Waaaaaa waaaaa waaaaa myopic endeavor. The city should not have needed to be "held together". It wasn't a sinking ship. It was a city. It could have been, you know, run like a city. Instead of being run into the ground.
All cities had problems in the 70's and 80's. DC was no exception. Yet it took until Tony Williams came to town to start fixing DC. An outsider had to begin the repairs. No one here could muster the ability.
They were there before you and they will be there long after the neo-urbanist fad has played itself out.
Nah, they won't. They will be dead. Duh. Good try though.
I for one will welcome our latino/a-hispanic overlords to solve this issue for team black and white.
by greent on Jul 12, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 12, 2011 4:23 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 12, 2011 4:30 pm • link • report
This is a huge problem with DC-- many people have normalized the idea that NOVA and suburban MD are the "appropriate" places to engage in business and commerce and that DC should be isolated from that kind of thing and not exposed to commercial businesses.
by JustMe on Jul 12, 2011 4:35 pm • link • report
This is a pretty silly argument. At some point, the costs of increasing density outweigh the benefits. Higher density may mean more "stuff," but it also means more crowding, congestion, noise, litter, pollution, crime, stress, etc. Most people seem to think the optimum density is much lower than you do.
by Gregor on Jul 12, 2011 8:33 pm • link • report
You're at least wrong on pollution. So what is the optimum density?
by David C on Jul 12, 2011 9:13 pm • link • report
Younger people tend to drive more than older ones.
by Tom Coumaris on Jul 12, 2011 9:47 pm • link • report
DC has been a notoriously low-density city, but up until relatively recently also been very crime/litter/congestion-ridden. Obviously, density was not the key variable responsible for all of that.
by Tyro on Jul 13, 2011 12:10 am • link • report
The Hine Site, Block 901, is zoned R-4 residential in its entirety.
http://maps.dcoz.dc.gov/
To the north is Block 900, across from Eastern Market, which is zoned CHC-C-2-A on its western half facing Eastern Market across 7th Street, and R-4 on its eastern half facing 8th Street. That would be an appropriate rezoning pattern for Block 901, the Hine Site (commercial on 7th and along Pennsylvania, residential on 8th and along D Street SE)...but that has not happened yet, has it?
The underlying C-2-A commercial zoning now in place on 7th Street on the next block north from the Hine Site offers a maximum height of 50 feet....and that height only applies on the western side of that adjacent block. The eastern side of that block is zoned R-4, height limit 40 feet.
That C-2-A height limit probably could be exceeded at the corner of 7th and Pennsylvania and along Pennsylvania without being too offensive.
C-3-A, which William thinks is the current zoning for the Hine Site, would allow a maximum height of 65 feet. I don't see anything in the zoning regs that requires a builder to build out to the maximum 65 feet height on every square inch of land so-zoned.
And, again, that's not the current zoning. That's still to be negotiated in the PUD process.
Along D Street SE and all of 8th Street, R-4 (maximum height 3 stories/40 feet) would be fine with me.
by Trulee Pist on Jul 13, 2011 1:36 am • link • report
Nearby at the other end of 8th Street's Barracks Row sits an above ground lot (under the SE/SW Freeway, near the Marine Barracks) that boasts some of the cheapest parking in DC: 75 cents an hour (CHEEP!). I've yet to see that lot even one-third full, and generally it languishes with fewer than a handful of cars on it.
by Trulee Pist on Jul 13, 2011 1:43 am • link • report
by William on Jul 13, 2011 6:13 am • link • report
by Trulee Pist on Jul 13, 2011 8:46 am • link • report
The bet's between goldfish and I. I win if the lot doesn't fill in the first year.
by David C on Jul 13, 2011 9:39 am • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 13, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
Like a DC resident friend of mine says.."Florida--where Old People go to die--and then don't."
Anyway--I think it's important to realize that one type of city planning will not satisfy all residents, and you can't please all of the people all of the time.
What is clear though, is that in the last 20 years, DC has seen an influx of young, urban professionals, mostly single and/or without children. This is bound to change the look/feel and commerce available in the city. And maybe some old housing/zoning laws could stand to be changed a bit. Imposing a 5 story or less rule seems simply silly and untenable with the rapid growth DC is seeing.
The housing/real estate boom of the late 90s/early 2000s clearly reflects that influx, and even after 3+ years of a recession, DC was just rated #1 city in the country in terms of appreciating home values was it not?
NIMBYs or YUPPIES or whatever...I don't see the trend reversing and folks heading en masse back to the suburbs (other than those within 5 miles and on the metro line).
There was a book a while back, forget the author/title, predicting the rise in popularty of "American City-States" or "City Centers"...listing the DC/NOVA/MD area as one of those areas predicted to keep growing and growing.
If the recession continues and the government decides to start cutting more heavily in the Defense and Fed Gov. job sector, THEN maybe we will see a slow down of folks moving to DC. I don't see it happening, but ya never know.
by LuvDusty on Jul 13, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report
by Trulee Pist on Jul 13, 2011 9:58 pm • link • report
Before they were chosen to redevelop the Hine School parcel, the developers knew they would be developing a project within the strictures and guidelines applicable to a historic district. A 90-ft office building that runs from the middle of the 200 block of 7th St. SE to the middle of the 700 block of PA Avenue SE is out of keeping with the Capitol Hill Historic District. To now argue that this office building has to be 90 feet tall because the area cries out for "smart growth" would be viewed as a "bait and switch" tactic in any other setting.
Those who are interested should go to hineschool.com. Click on Our Vision. Compare the stated objectives of the developers to the various iterations of conceptual design and decide if you think they've met their own stated goal of creating a feel that the buildings have always been here.
by capitol hill booster on Jul 15, 2011 5:44 pm • link • report
Add a Comment