An opposition hotbed near AU was once itself opposed

Development

An opposition hotbed near AU was once itself opposed

by Neil Flanagan • November 16, 2011 1:37 pm

The strongest criticism to American University's East Campus project has come from some neighbors in the adjacent Westover Place private community. Their case against the plan, however, is eroded by a development fight 36 years ago, where their own homes were the development threatening to spoil Northwest's character.

Townhouses of Westover Place. Image from Google Street View.

Just as some residents are fighting the potential of AU's campus expansion, so did an earlier generation fight the development of the property that abuts a five-acre parking lot AU wants to turn into a leafy complex of low-rise residential buildings.

A substantial amount of opposition has arisen in Westover Place, a gated complex of rowhouses between Massachusetts Avenue and ~~Foxhall Road~~ New Mexico Avenue. They have been the most vocal at ANC 3D meetings, insisted that AU build its buildings next to other people's homes, and gathered there for this summer's traffic protest.

Westover Place and AU. Image from Google Maps.

But in 1977, it was the threat of Westover Place that was vexing locals. According to a September 25th, 1977 Washington Post article:

And to the north of this, adjacent to the 5-acre university parking lot, Kettler Brothers Inc., the giant development company that built Montgomery Village, has already cleared more than eight acres where 149 town houses will be constructed. Houses in this development, Westover Place, will sell from about $135,000.

In the article, entitled "Bulldozers at the Estates," Phil McCombs reports on arguments and characters not unlike the current fights over American University's expansion and other developments in the area. Just as before, opponents are appealing to a right of first arrival, but the article lays bare the hypocrisy in living in a development while fighting a development because it will have the same effects your house did. The rowhouses of Westover Place and similar developments paved over Northwest's last open spaces that seemed so essential to the "rural" character of piedmont Washington.

Similar to the opposition to the 1960 Tenley Library and the 1941 Sears Roebuck, an enormous to-do was made over the development and yet both became established elements of the community. At that time, however, the changes seemed signified the end of something unique. McCombs quotes the ANC3 Commissioner Polly Shackelton bemoaning the change:

"Here you have these fine established residential neighborhoods, which will be impacted with increased density and traffic and all kinds of things that really could be very damaging," she said. "I think in a way it's too bad we don't have a comprehensive plan."
She said that development of the Rockefeller estate, for example, "will be devastating because Foxhall Road is already crowded. With 100 new houses there, I don't know how we'll deal with it."

The problematic idea here is "establishment": that because a neighborhood has reached any level of development at all, it should be maintained as it is. Are the current residents who now enjoy this property more justified than their neighbors who lived there in 1977, or estate owners who lived there in 1917?

Dramatic Change: Westover site (red) in 1894 and 1965. Maps from USGS.

No, these developments were part of the gradual urbanization of rural estates with density that is more appropriate to a close-in area. In 1977, it was the end of estates, and now it is a shift away from suburban design. Planning should manage change, but we cannot presume to think that any section of a city is in its final state. This flux, and its resistance are the same as today as they were a generation ago.

The objections seem as new (and as stale) as ones thrown up on the Tenleytown listerv yesterday. Just as opponents of Douglas Development's proposal for the former Babe's Billiards site have argued, in 1977 "Area residents said they are concerned that students from the nearby university will team up in the apartment buildings—creating what one person called 'rabbit warrens.' There is also concern that parking space will be insufficient, or that residents of new developments will park in the streets rather than pay to park in areas provided by the developers."

But the city and its infrastructure have been able to adapt to the new houses and the new apartments. The Metro arrived at Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. Both of those neighborhoods have survived significant growth, and quality of life and environment has improved. Friendship Heights, in particular, remains extremely popular as a place to raise a family, even has it has grown more popular as a retail destination and apartment community.

Long-term residents recall the fight of the development of the Glover estate as quite heated, yet the predicted cataclysms never came to pass. Residents of newer developments have integrated into the community, enough to fight changes, at least. Why should we expect any of the dire predictions about AU's expansion to come to fruition?

Cross-posted at цarьchitect. A version of this post appeared in the November 15th, 2011 issue of the Northwest Current.

23 comments

Tags: American University, anti neighbors, campuses, DC, development

Proposed AU dorms earn an easy A (Jun 10, 2010)
AU students need more, quality on-campus housing (Mar 3, 2011)
Moving AU law school could revitalize Tenleytown (May 26, 2010)
AU's East Campus plan is a good start (Jun 7, 2011)
Neighbors oppose redevelopment of Dupont parking lot (Aug 25, 2011)

Neil Flanagan is a Washington native currently studying for a masters in architecture at Yale. He gets his best ideas while out walking, and often writes them down at his blog, цarьchitect.

Comments
Add a comment »

"a gated complex of rowhouses between Massachusetts Avenue and Foxhall Road."

True, but isn't it more specifically between Mass and New Mexico?

by TM on Nov 16, 2011 1:45 pm

You can file this under "Plus ça change." There is a long and proud history of people trying to lock the door immediately behind themselves.

A related tale: when the 1789 restaurant was being proposed, it was stridently attacked. One Georgetown neighbor took it upon himself to write the Archbishop of Washington:

"The clock on Healy Hall strikes … pealing forth over our neighborhood the ominous suggestion that our days as a residential community are numbered and soon … Georgetown University will extend all the way to Rock Creek."

These days, it's the treasured favorite dining room of the local landed gentry, to the point that Georgetown's proposed expansion of its library was challenged by neighbors on the grounds that the parking lot currently there fulfills an indispensable role - valet parking for 1789.

by Dizzy on Nov 16, 2011 1:46 pm

In any case, Товарищ Фланаган, you've forgotten the most important difference between the two examples: 36 years ago, the people moving in would be respectable, upper-middle class folk able to purchase a $135,000 house. In the case of East Campus, we're talking about students. I will let ANC2E SMD 06 Commissioner Tom Birch explain the difference:

"[Students] cannot follow basic rules of living" - January 20, 2011

Why would you want an influx of people - animals, really - into your neighborhood who are incapable of following the basic rules of living?

by Dizzy on Nov 16, 2011 1:58 pm

All this goes back to the simple fact that neighborhoods change. This is why I never understood the home values argument. Over the course of a mortgage your home's value will go up unless the neighborhood completely goes to pot (unlikely in a lot of places that have these big fights, and if it does happen its certainly not attributable to a single instance of a building going up) or something completely out of control like our current housing bust. So unless you plan on selling your house in the very near future the impact on your home's value should be minimal.

by Canaan on Nov 16, 2011 2:04 pm

This is funny ... So one mistake justifies another?

by Lance on Nov 16, 2011 2:25 pm

What, hypocrisy in Ward 3?

@Lance, why would in scale administration and dormitories replacing a surface parking lot be a mistake?

by William on Nov 16, 2011 2:29 pm

@William:
Lance is referring to the "change equals mistake" rule.

by Matt Johnson on Nov 16, 2011 2:31 pm

@ Dizzy:A related tale: when the 1789 restaurant was being proposed, it was stridently attacked. One Georgetown neighbor took it upon himself to write the Archbishop of Washington:

Wow. I love that. That was in the 60s. Can we conclude that the neighborhood has won and the university has lost all that time? So perhaps the neighborhood an stop its "boohoo we're so sad and powerless against the mean evil large university" pose.

by Jasper on Nov 16, 2011 2:47 pm

@William @Lance, why would in scale administration and dormitories replacing a surface parking lot be a mistake?

I'm referring to the stated assumption in the article that because this subdivision may have posed the same issues as the current proposal poses today that the people living in the older subdivision today have no right to raise the same issues as a defense. That's absurd.

Degradation of a neighborhood or a city is a gradual process. It is the slippery slope. Just because the existing neighborhood may have played a part in degrading the neighborhood's character, that doesn't mean that the people living there today don't have a right, or even a duty, to fight further degradation.

This has nothing to do with 'closing the door to others coming in'. If that were the case, then all house sales there would be illegal, wouldn't they? Is that the case? No.

This is purely and simply about maintaining the qualities of a neighborhood whatever they may be. Those opposing the campus plans as presented may be right or they may be wrong in asserting that what is planned will impinge on those qualities they wish to maintain, but that is not the issue. And that is not my point. My point is simply that everyone in that neighborhood has a right to fight to maintain the quality of that neighborhood ... irrespective of whether they're own homes contribute to that quality or not.

by Lance on Nov 16, 2011 3:08 pm

This is funny ... So one mistake justifies another?

I think a compromise can be made. AU cancels its plans. In exchange, the residents of Westover Place are removed and relocated to Fairfax County, and their homes destroyed and replaced with green space.

by JustMe on Nov 16, 2011 3:09 pm

On the evening of November 30, there will be a meeting at Saint Mary's Armenian church at 41st Street and Fesseden (between Friendship Hts and Tenley) to discuss American Univesity's plans for the Tenley campus. American U. wants to move the Washington College of Law from the semi-suburban Spring Valley location to its Tenley Circle campus, which is about a five minute walk from the Tenley metro station and is well-served by the 30s buses. It will also help enliven this section of Wisocnsin Avenue.

Here are the latest renderings for the Tenley campus. Although I'm not an architect, it does a good job blending the new buildins with the historic Capital Hall building, and given that many of the surrounding trees are taller than any of the proposed buildings, the scale is entirely appropriate for the area.

http://www.american.edu/finance/fas/upload/HPRB-Final-Presentation.PDF

by Ben on Nov 16, 2011 3:10 pm

Given that American University has been in that area for over 100 years, I would suspect that the addition of some new dorms (bringing group-house "disruptive" students on campus) adjacent to the busy Massachusetts and Nebraska Avenue area is much less disruptive than the addition of 136 townhouses on 5 acres was in 1977.

Yes, everyone has a right to raise objections and provide inputs that can improve a plan, but in this particular case, these people wouldn't even be living there if the Wesley Heights residents had prevailed a generation ago.

Cities evolve, and higher education is a vitally important engine to the local economy. It is cutting of one's nose to spite their face to mount such entrenched opposition.

by William on Nov 16, 2011 3:21 pm

Lance and I agree, change in a neighborhood comes gradually. However I don't think "too many new buildings" is one of the main reasons a neighborhood begins to fail. It may change your neighborhood according to your preferences but I fail to see how development (unless its some sort of massive public housing project) leads to it. Development means desirability.

by Canaan on Nov 16, 2011 3:30 pm

@William:

I would also suspect that providing students with housing right across the street, allowing them to walk to class instead of living in group homes in Tenley or Friendship Heights and driving to campus is also a lot less 'disruptive.'

by Ben on Nov 16, 2011 3:32 pm

Addendum: A brand new development can certainly degrade quickly because of deflated expectations about their value but in an established inner-city neighborhood where there are already a lot of buildings I don't think it would hold up.

by Canaan on Nov 16, 2011 3:35 pm

Or, have AU sell the parking lot to a developer, who can proceed to build Westover Place II, thereby cratering the market for such townhomes for the foreseeable future.

by ah on Nov 16, 2011 6:05 pm

Low-density development just six miles from the center of town, locked in by short-sighted zoning laws and perpetual litigation, is the reason why the metro area now extends to Pennsylvania.

by Frank IBC on Nov 16, 2011 8:13 pm

Lance, I presume you'll be the first one to tell the current residents that they're mistakes, then?

Dizzy, it wouldn't surprise me if they are вредители and тунеядци whose drinking is merely a tool of counter-status sabotage. Also, I've heard that Akridge buys their Jager taps and marihuana.

TM You are correct.

by Neil Flanagan on Nov 16, 2011 10:38 pm

people need to realize one things everything around you changes either for the good or bad if your dont want your community to change move to a spot under a rock or a farm house 80mils outside of the city

by Jerome on Nov 17, 2011 9:45 am

I remember the complaints when the Glover estate was developed. The main house, which I believe was called Westover, faced Mass. Ave., and was demolished before my time, but the Gothic/Tudor house, Orchard Park (?), was still intact in the 70s. The northeast side of New Mexico Avenue, from The Towers to the parking lot, looked like a beautiful "forest primeval."

But nothing lasts forever, and AU's plan for the east campus site looks good to this 39-year resident of neighboring Glover Park. Sink the parking garage underground and beef up the Westover buffer with a tall berm and a "wild strip" of intensive plantings, and it will be fine.

Two last items: First, Nebraska Avenue should be expanded to five lanes between New Mexico Avenue and Ward Circle. A dedicated left turn lane for westbound Nebraska traffic onto New Mexico would greatly ease the congestion in that area. Second, AU should be required to build either a skyway over, or a tunnel under, Mass. Ave. to facilitate safe pedestrian traffic between the main campus and the Katzen Center.

Pie in the Sky: DC should re-route Massachusetts Ave. through traffic in a four-lane tunnel under Ward Circle. Costly, but worth every penny in the "traffic calming" effects it would bring to the Circle.

by Publius Washingtoniensis on Nov 17, 2011 12:35 pm

Hypocrisy? Not unless they participated in the opposition at that time. Which, since the townhouses weren't built yet, they couldn't have been living in, and aren't likely to have been living in the surrounding 'hood at the time, and aren't likely to have been there for 36 years anyway, so....

Unless you're conflating the property and its residents.

by drbubbles on Nov 18, 2011 9:20 am

@Publius

There's no problems with foot traffic between Katzen and the main campus, and tunnels are disgusting and unsanitary. Please, no, leave well enough alone.

by ADW on Nov 18, 2011 10:02 pm

It is really beyond me that there is even a controversy here. AU has been here long, long, long before Westover Place.

As the cited article states, the townhomes were built next to an existing 5-acre parking lot, owned by a university that is otherwise land-locked. What did they expect? I've always wondered why the university didn't do something with that ugly parking lot. Seriously Westover residents?

I'd go for a low-rise development with National Arboretum level landscaping over the chance that AU decides to sell it for millions.... It would be a nice location for an office building, or maybe another large apartment building like the Berks? Whaddya think, AU neighbors?

Just saying... geez. Oy vey. And by the way, most juniors and seniors already live down Mass Ave and cross Nebraska Ave and Ward Circle all day, all night, every day.... They are already off campus and in the neighborhoods. Obviously they are good kids or you would know this....

by Oy vey on Nov 18, 2011 11:10 pm