Disclaimer:

I know nothing about this specific project:

Obviously this is a "smart use" of an existing parking lot and underutilized land in a high density area. Rentals, condos, office...wouldn't matter to me, any of it is a clear net benefit to the District, to the status quo.

However...

What is the Churches involvement and how do they benefit?

As Church property, its been off the property tax rolls. Is the Church selling the property to a developer, or are they retaining ownership?

by freely on Aug 25, 2011 10:35 am • link • report

I feel that an apartment building would detract from the low-density, quiet residential character of the Dupont Circle neighborhood. Can you blame these local residents for wanting something more congruent with the character of the neighborhood, like a parking lot?

by JustMe on Aug 25, 2011 10:56 am • link • report

I hope "JustMe" is also JustKidding because Dupont is one of the highest density neighborhoods in the city, and is flush with 90-foot+ apartment buildings. This particular building will fit this particular part of neighborhood like a glove.

by Eric on Aug 25, 2011 11:02 am • link • report

Uh, low density neighborhood? It's would be next to an apartment building and across the street from a giant one that runs all the way down to Mass.

by Steve D on Aug 25, 2011 11:08 am • link • report

same old story...completely unfounded complaints. In fact, have any opponents of new buildings dire predictions ever come true? If so, does anyone know the percentage?

by cmc on Aug 25, 2011 11:09 am • link • report

JustMe - Now you've learned that the internet somehow thinks irony was never invented.

by Ben Ross on Aug 25, 2011 11:09 am • link • report

The problem with the GGW comments is that even when I write something completely absurd, it's nearly indistinguishable from what many people actually believe.

by JustMe on Aug 25, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

Thanks, Adam, for this piece.

As a minor clarification, I said both at the ANC meeting and in my e-mail to you that the proposed design works well as an infill because it is a nod to the mid-century modern style of nearby existing structures such as Boston House and the Bay State.

As you correctly point out, the Dupont Conservancy has no objection to the project on HP grounds, nor do I. It fits in nicely with everything around it.

As far as other issues raised by neighbors, those will be heard and discussed at the September 6th committee meeting, and then by the full ANC at the regular monthly meeting, September 14th at 7pm at the Brookings Institution.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 25, 2011 11:11 am • link • report

"The main hurdles for the project before development can proceed are endorsement by the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 2B), approval by the Historic Preservation Review Board, and acquisition of a zoning variance needed for a portion of the lot."

I know this isn't the main obstacle, and I may regret asking this, but what objection could the Historic Preservation Review Board POSSIBLY make to this? Can a surface parking lot really have such historic significance that it needs to be preserved?

by dcd on Aug 25, 2011 11:16 am • link • report

Ahh, is this news? Somebody wants to do something completely sensible and ordinary, and the neighborhood ANC objects. This is not "news", this is the modus operandi of DC.

Perhaps we can start a series on proposals that have been enthusiastically approved by ANCs. On the other hand, there might not be content for that.

by Jasper on Aug 25, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

parking lots forever! how dare people attempt to develop this contextual gem! and college students don't need to live anywhere! they should be happy just to be in DC and should take all the old, outdated dorms they can get and be happy with it!

by Poster Nutbag on Aug 25, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

Note: the "existing site" photo is taken from the t-intersection at 17th Street and O Street while the "proposed building" sketch is from the perspective of 17th Street and Massachusetts Avenue. The comparison was confusing to me until I took a look at the map.

by Oliver on Aug 25, 2011 11:22 am • link • report

@JustMe "I feel that an apartment building would detract from the low-density, quiet residential character of the Dupont Circle neighborhood. Can you blame these local residents for wanting something more congruent with the character of the neighborhood, like a parking lot?

Actually, only part of what you wrote, the 2nd sentence, is patently ridculous. Dupont is indeed a low-density neighborhood with a residential character. Yes, some of that residential character was lost in the time AFTER it's designated period of historic significance (as witnessed by some of the buildings immediately adjacent to the site), but past mistakes aren't useful for justifying future ones. The best that can be said is that given the non-conforming buildings immediately adjacent to the site, another non-conforming use isn't going to be a problem. In most other parts of the neighborhood, this building would not be compatible with the low-density, residential nature of the neighborhood as defined in and protected by the documentation establishing the Dupont Circle Historic District.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

'Property management company Keener-Squire reports that of the over 1,100 similar units they manage in the Dupont and Logan Circle neighborhoods, only about 2% are occupied by undergraduate students.'

Do you really believe they mean dormitory for students? Even students rarely live in true dormitory conditions anymore. (I.e., One large room with lots of beds in it.) I'd suspect that they're instead referring to what is becoming a trend with all new buildings going up nowadays (i.e., 'starter' units.) There's nothing wrong with starter units and they are of course needed since we all need to start somewhere. The problem comes up when that's all you're seeing built. Neighborhood stability happens when you have residents moving in who plan to stay for the long haul. If you're getting a disproportionate share of entry level housing going in, how can the people moving in have the expectation of 'moving up' when the times comes in. We need more housing at all housing stages in this neighborhood. We need the single person moving in now to know there'll be somewhere to move up to in the neighborhood when the times comes. I seem to remember GGW at one time advocating for more 2 and 3 bedroom apartments for this very reason when it first came on line. Has that view changed in the intervening years? If so, why?

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 11:39 am • link • report

Well said CMC: same old story...completely unfounded complaints. In fact, have any opponents of new buildings dire predictions ever come true? If so, does anyone know the percentage?

We have way too much oversight of such projects to begin with. But this project blends perfectly into the neighborhood template in place.

by Pelham1861 on Aug 25, 2011 11:58 am • link • report

Lance, what part of "only about 2% are occupied by undergraduate students" do you not understand? The loud-mouths objecting at the ANC meetings are as usual making arguments totally disconnected from facts, in this case, raising the specter of student housing and referring to students.

As I said, I oppose this apartment building because a parking lot is a more appropriate use of the land, and the traditional, historic use here, which is what you would expect for a neighborhood like Dupont Circle, unbesotten by commercial activity, a metro station, and until-now unburdened with too many people, which is in keeping with L'Enfant's original plan. Given these facts, I cannot see how anyone could possibly agree with giving people an additional place to live or work, disturbing the quiet tranquility of our fine town.

by JustMe on Aug 25, 2011 11:58 am • link • report

This concern about whether students will live there is completely ineffective, as the DC Human Rights Act prevents discrimination based on matriculation and source of income. Denying building permits or even ANC support based on if the people who live there are students and whether they pay their rent from jobs or student loans could easily run afoul of the law.

by sb on Aug 25, 2011 11:59 am • link • report

After WWII, it was not uncommon for apartment buildings to have one giant dining hall for all residents; the units came without kitchens. Talk about dormitory-style living; I think these were called bachelor apartments? Nowadays young adults insist on even their own laundry machines; shared laundromats could save space and money. I always thought Seattle's Sit & Spin (laundromat/cafe) was a model for others, but now even that has closed.

Anyways, density is good, especially in Dupont, which has the transit infrastructure and commercial density to allow people to live without cars.

by Michael on Aug 25, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report

Those evil young professionals ruin everything. They gentrify our neighborhoods and try to force infill development, they must be stopped at all cost!!

by Mike on Aug 25, 2011 12:08 pm • link • report

Apparently you guys aren't familiar with laws. As a resident in DC you have the right to veto any change to any property in the District that may offend you, or someone else, at any time, for any reason, including--but not limited to--aesthetics, density, neighborhood "feel", avarice, psychological impact, boredom, "intangibles", social justice, and/or rent-seeking.

As someone who owns a home worth more than one million dollars, I reserve the right to stop a church several blocks away from building apartments to serve those awful "young singles" that make my neighborhood, and thus my home, so valuable.

by NIMBY!! on Aug 25, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

@Michael

You're thinking of residential hotels (at the high end) and SROs (at the low end). Common from the late 19th C through mid 20th, and characterized by shared facilities and month-to-month rentals. Most did not have kitchens and instead provided restaurants or coffee shops, although food was not included in the rent. The lower-income types tended to have shared bathrooms. Sometimes they came with furniture.

These could be quite fancy establishments - probably half of the early 20th century apartment buildings in this town were originally residential hotels.

by David R. on Aug 25, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report

@dcd

The historic preservation issue in this case don't involve preserving a parking lot but ensuring that the design and materials used in the new construction match other surrounding properties in the historic district.

As for Lance's comment but housing variety, I actually wholly agree. More varied types of housing including 2+ bedroom apartments and single-family homes (either detached or rowhouses) are an integral part of the housing stock. However, I'm not sure that's the best use of this particular site. It's clear that the rental inventory for these types of units is still very low, meaning that they're in high demand and this area of the city is a perfect place to put them.

I'm a big believer in the idea that if single people and young couples are priced out of living in DC to begin with that the likelihood they're going to move into the city later is basically zilch. In addition, I've also been struck by how many senior citizens also choose to live in these types of developments after downsizing from their larger, higher-upkeep homes. It's all part of the housing cycle and I'm sure as demand grows for other types of housing units, construction will follow.

by Adam L on Aug 25, 2011 12:28 pm • link • report

@ Lance - I agree that more 2 and 3 bedroom condos/rental units are a better idea than effciencies or 1 bedroom units. However, the specter of college kids living in DuPont and wrecking the neighborhood is silly. I think you're off-base with your assertion that DuPont is not a dense neighborhood. There are several streets on which single family homes predominate. But there are also a lot of apartment/condo buildings, so it seems to be pretty dense neighborhood and the transit located there lends itself toward greater density.

by The Heights on Aug 25, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report

I think I should also point out that, as alluded to in the post, the project is not really "high density." While the building may be "tall", at 90 feet zoning rules would allow a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of up to 7.2. However, the project as planned has an FAR of 3.76, which is a "medium" density project. For example, the architect could have squeezed more space into the building by adding a 10th floor in 90 feet, as some of the surrounding apartment and condo buildings have done in order to cram as much square footage onto that lot as possible. However, for whatever reason, that was not done here. Basically, height does not always equal density.

by Adam L on Aug 25, 2011 12:57 pm • link • report

@freely -- being owned by a church does not automatically mean the property is off the tax rolls. It has to be used for a charitable/religious purpose for that to be the case. So if they keep the land, but build apartments on it they will pay property taxes on it. They may even pay income taxes on the profits, I'm less sure about the rules of "unrelated business income."

by Kate W on Aug 25, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report

@Jasper:

Not a single Commissioner voiced any opposition to this project at the August meeting.

"Somebody wants to do something completely sensible and ordinary, and the neighborhood ANC objects." What on Earth are you talking about?

It was referred to a committee that includes people with zoning expertise to hear the objections (and suggestions) of the neighbors.

Perhaps we will learn that the west-facing windows will cause an afternoon sun reflection problem for people across the street and that could be mitigated by taking corrective steps. Maybe not.

Perhaps we will hear people saying we need more larger units to accommodate young families, and the developers might agree. Maybe not.

Perhaps we will hear some well-reasoned arguments why the project should be changed. And perhaps we will hear some NIMBY ravings.

I have seen nothing so far to give me any problem with the project, but I am open to hear the objections and suggestions of others. They may see or know things we might have missed. And they deserve the right to be heard.

In any case, the developers brought the HP presentation to the ANC in August and planned to bring the zoning variance presentation in September. The ANC added the committee meeting to accommodate additional community input.
And the final presentation is still scheduled for September 14th, the date the developer requested. This is all being done without any expected delay in a final ANC action.

What's the problem with public input?

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 25, 2011 1:42 pm • link • report

I'd be 100% in favor of this development if it weren't for the parking issue. But adding 228 apartments with only 57 parking spaces is going to make parking a lot worse. Yes, it's a very walkable and transit-friendly neighborhood, but there will still be substantially more than the 1 car per 4 apartment ratio they're planning for.

Is there a way to designate residents of this building as being ineligible for residential parking permits (without taking the whole block out of the RPP program)? If that could be done, then that would address the parking issue.

by Rob on Aug 25, 2011 1:45 pm • link • report

One follow-up point: this whole parking issue would be moot if DC would set a reasonable price for RPPs. But when you sell RPPs for $15/year in a neighborhood where private parking costs at least $200/month, you get massive excess demand for parking spaces -- and that means that adding a large number of additional cars competing for those spaces is a bad idea.

by Rob on Aug 25, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report

I'd be 100% in favor of this development if it weren't for the parking issue. But adding 228 apartments with only 57 parking spaces is going to make parking a lot worse.

If the parking situation is so bad and almost impossible to find a parking spot, then the people who move there will be very unlikely to have a car, and will instead look for other, more car-friendly neighborhoods.

If it isn't that hard to find a spot, then, very logically, someone who wants a car will have one. So which is it? Either it's very easy to find a spot, and you want to keep it that way, or it's so hard to find a spot that no one in their right mind moving to this apartment would want a car without off-street parking.

by JustMe on Aug 25, 2011 1:52 pm • link • report

Rob, unless I misunderstood I thought the project incorporated 93 parking spaces.

by spookiness on Aug 25, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report

@Lance: "Dupont is indeed a low-density neighborhood with a residential character."

Not to confuse the discussion with the facts, but population density is 87.4 people per square mile in the United States, 9,856.5 people per square mile for the District of Columbia and 45,677.8 people per square mile for Census Tract 5301, where this project is located. In other words, the neighborhood in question is pretty high-density neighborhood. And last time I strolled through it, it seemed pretty mixed-use in character. Indeed, I am pretty sure that just one block from that location on 17th Street one can find residences, restaurants, bars, stores, etc.

by rg on Aug 25, 2011 2:08 pm • link • report

@spookiness

It's 93 total, but 57 of those spaces will be dedicated to the building residents, as required by zoning. The developer is concerned that there will be too much excess parking and even thought about asking the zoning commission for an additional parking variance but decided against it.

The real problem with parking, as Rob pointed out, is the ridiculous RPP system. But that's a discussion for another day.

by Adam L on Aug 25, 2011 2:13 pm • link • report

rg+1

Dupont is one of the most dense parts of the entire city. As has been brought up over and over again, condo/apartment buildings aren't the only way to achieve density - rowhouses are quite dense as well.

http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_District_of_Columbia.pdf

by MLD on Aug 25, 2011 2:30 pm • link • report

@Pelham1861 "Well said CMC: same old story...completely unfounded complaints. In fact, have any opponents of new buildings dire predictions ever come true? If so, does anyone know the percentage?

Huh .. yeah ... Something like 100% ... The area south of Dupont Circle was very much like the area north of Dupont Circle until the 1970s. In some ways it was nicer ... with even nicer homes. AND it was almost completely residential with few apartment houses but rather single family homes that might have been serving a few families, but never the hundreds of people like a building like this one is intended to serve. Dormitory needs were met else in the city. Not in Dupont Circle.

South of the Cirlce as it once was, is no more, and hence why the historic presevation movement sprang up to protect what was left. We have people in our local historic preservation groups who were around then and remember (and still think of) the area near the Tabard Inn as completely residential. (Incidentally, hotels can and do count as residential.)

So, just because you haven't seen with your own eyes the cases that prove those fears are not unfounded, doesn't mean they aren't. Pull out a picture book of pre-WWII Dupont and you'll see how much was lost.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report

@dcd 'Can a surface parking lot really have such historic significance that it needs to be preserved?

Obviously not. It's the rest of the area which the historic preservation laws would be looking to protect. Let's say that parking lot were sitting directly on Mass. Ave. ... Could you see why what got built on that lot would/could affect the rest of the street in either a negative or positive way? Historic Preservation isn't an easy concept to grasp. But when you keep in mind that just preserving 'something old' is NOT the idea behind historic preservation, then it starts to be more understandable. Walk down a Dupont Street south of Dupont Circle (e.g., K Street) and then walk down a similar one north of the circle (e.g., S Street) and you'll see the 2 extremes ... where K Street lost it's historic look 'one building/church/monument at a time'.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report

@Rob "Is there a way to designate residents of this building as being ineligible for residential parking permits (without taking the whole block out of the RPP program)? If that could be done, then that would address the parking issue."

Arlington does that, but DC has been reluctant to do so. Personally, I'd rather not see 2 class of residents established ... 1 allowed to get RPP and 1 not. I don't agree with our public streets being used as a long term parking option (it creates too many of the wrong types of incentives) and would much rather see the developer here have an incentive to build a 1000 car garage below the building (for every car parked there it's one less car clogging our roads and fighting for the scarce shortterm street side parking we all need if we're to live a normal life like our suburban neighbors) BUT if we're going to allow curbside to be used for car storage, then it really needs to be open to all car storers.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 2:56 pm • link • report

@JustMe: You are correct that it's harmless to add more apartments without adding enough parking if either (a) street parking is so difficult that no one will get a car without having an offstreet space or (b) street parking is so easy that adding a bunch of additional cars won't cause any problem.

However, just because something is true for two extreme cases doesn't mean it's true for any case in between. Street parking is not difficult enough that it will deter everyone from getting RPPs. But it is difficult enough that adding a bunch more cars will cause problems for all of the current residents of that area that park on the street.

by Rob on Aug 25, 2011 3:22 pm • link • report

I think it would be very useful were the main entrance off of O Street. That block of O between 16th and 17th has long suffered from a lack of foot traffic and, as a result, has had many nuisances, such as auto break-ins etc.
Ensuring that any new residential structure engages the street better than does The Richmond or Resources for the Future should be a serious consideration.

by Mark Bjorge on Aug 25, 2011 3:28 pm • link • report

Suggestions such as Mark Bjorge's - above - are precisely the type of ideas that the ANC is seeking through public comment.

That doesn't mean we have to endorse them or the developer must do what Mark says - but Mark's observation is something that could make for a more successful project and a safer area.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 25, 2011 4:46 pm • link • report

Lance, I don't think you mean "south of the Circle" but Massachusetts Ave. specifically. Much of the housing stock south of Connecticut Ave. is a mix of large mansions (since converted to other things), rowhouses, and apartment buildings of various sizes, from a variety of time periods. When I first came to DC in 1987, I worked at 16th and P (yes, in a converted mansion) and while there is new infill apartment buildings and such, for the most part, north of 15th Street anyway, the building stock is comparatively old.

by Richard Layman on Aug 25, 2011 5:37 pm • link • report

Historically, the Dupont Circle Citizens Association extended South to K street.
As far South as that was residential. I am friends with a family who's house used to exist at RI and CT Ave- where the Brooks Brothers now is. They grew up there, remain DC residents, and are living links to that past.
None of this is to say that vhange cannot happen or that the city cannot grow. However, as Lance notes, preservationists do by necessity take a long view. And that's not a bad thing b

by Mark Bjorge on Aug 25, 2011 6:59 pm • link • report

The headline of this post is misleading, as many neighbors actually support the project (including me, an ANC Commissioner in Dupont).

I'm very glad that we're going to be holding a public meeting specific to this issue. Too often the ANC spends 10 minutes on issues like this without thought, sufficient public input, and ample time for discussion.

by Jack Jacobson on Aug 25, 2011 10:12 pm • link • report

Is it really within the power of an ANC to force a developer to change the mix of units *inside* a building? That seems awfully counterintuative to the notion that real estate professionals, not elected politicans, know how to make a building commercially successful.

I can understand the ANC involving itself in issues like how the building might affect traffic patterns (e.g., where the entrance is, how many parking spaces are included) or whether the exterior fits with the rest of the street (you don't necessarily want a glass box next to a limestone townhouse - although it works for the economics think tank on MA Ave). But the idea that the ANC can insist on 2BR apartments seems pretty extreme to me.

I hope this project doesn't get slowed down by a small group of vocal "activists" holding it up. Seems pretty classist/arrogant to argue for keeping a nasty surface parking lot instead of moving forward with construction that would offer tax revenue and residential options for lower-income people (whether they're young, or single, or retired, or poor, or whatever).

by Anon2 on Aug 29, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report

Also - would it possible to put some street-level retail on this block? Or is that part of 17th not allowed to have any due to zoning restrictions?

by Anon2 on Aug 29, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report

Parking preservation is of vital/critical concern for most of the historical preservation people in DC- they want to preserve the heritage of the car-oriented lifestyle and maintain this cultural attribute as long as possible. They want the city to be easily accessed by car and public transit is both messy and low class for anyone who has earhed their rights to luxury who is over 60 years of age. As one well known DC historic preservationist said back in the 90's ..." anyone who thinks that they can live with out a car in DC is living in a fantasy world".

by w on Aug 29, 2011 3:51 pm • link • report

First off, as a resident of the District of which the past 7 years has been at 17th & P street. I could tell you horror stories about trying to find a parking spot in this area.It is virtually a night mare and at times, i have even been afraid to leave in my car due to having spend an hour or more trying to find a parking spot when i get back. As a Realtor, there is no such thing as affordable housing in Dupont, let's be real, the average 1 bedroom rents for $2500 a month.
There is no reason we need a building of this magnitude to cause more havoc and grief. By doing so, it will make property values go down due to even more lack of parking. And parking in this area to rent is costly, more then $200.00 a month. As for students not being able to afford to live there, please, their parents are paying a lot of money to send them to college, if you don't believe me, visit any college parking lot and you will see BMW's,Lexus and infinities along with Mercedes. The city needs to stop always thinking about revenue and start thinking about the tax payers.

by Lloyd Shipley on Dec 3, 2012 11:21 pm • link • report

From an actual neighbour living on p street. Since this project started there is absolutely no parking in my neighbourhood, parking for my wife and I (mid 30's) so not overly impatient, who share a vehicle is now impossible, since the project started we have only once found a parking less than 5 blocks away, we are personally looking to sell because at 40 to 50000 dollars a parking spot we cant afford one, wow I wish we worked right off the metro!

by neighbour on Dec 6, 2012 11:00 pm • link • report

I don't believe most of these posts are from neighbours, we have a dog and speak to a lot of our neighbours on a daily basis but not a single positive comment, someone should run a story on this!

by neighbour on Dec 6, 2012 11:07 pm • link • report