I'm unique too!: Whitman-Walker development plans

Development

I'm unique too!: Whitman-Walker development plans

by David Alpert • November 13, 2008 5:08 pm

No sooner had the dust settled in Dupont Circle and U Street from the debate over the Utopia project at 14th and U, or the furor over the Room and Board purchase of 14th and T, than controversy erupted on the next block. Earlier this year, JBG acquired the former Whitman-Walker Clinic at 14th and S, along with the adjacent, non-historic buildings making up that block of 14th. They plan a seven-story building with 120-130 apartments above ground-floor retail:

The historic Whitman-Walker building is at the left, which will stay and become the residential entrance to the entire building. The project is separated from the townhouses on S and Swann by an alley, which runs straight from S to Swann and joins another alley lengthwise through the block. The developers plan to locate the loading docks and underground parking entrance in the alley, building 90 parking spaces instead of the required 105.

In addition to the parking variance (technically a "special exception"), the developers are seeking three others: to exceed the lot occupancy by three percent (78% instead of 75%), to slightly exceed the setback requirements from the ARTS overlay in that area, and to get an exemption from the ARTS overlay limit of 25% restaurants by linear feet.

Similarly to in Cleveland Park, the ARTS overlay area (which includes most of the commercial areas of 14th and U Streets, Florida and 7th, and P Street in Logan Circle) limits restaurants to 25% of the linear feet. With all the restaurants on U Street, that number is up to 24%, meaning this building couldn't lease to new restaurants.

At last night's Dupont Circle ANC meeting, several residents spoke against the project. Most talked about the historic two-story townhouses on S Street. According to resident Tom Coumaris, the houses were built in ~~1804~~ 1864, well before the rest of the neighborhood, from old trusses from the 11th Street bridge. The trusses were too small to reach across a whole house, forcing the builders to construct large joists in the middle. Resident Jim Bogden explained how many of them lack cement between the bricks, with only lime and sand sealing the cracks.

Of course, we don't want the construction to make any houses fall down, and the builders better take adequate care. But at the same time, this isn't a persuasive argument to block the project, despite the wishes of many of the residents who spoke. Coumaris disputed the wisdom of putting parking and loading in the rear, given the existing curb cut on 14th and the historic lack of traffic in that alley. This illustrates the danger of making an exception for one unique alley: everyone will argue that they are unique, and should therefore push all garage traffic onto the main street, where the cars will conflict with other pedestrians, instead of their alley.

But the Dupont Circle ANC didn't agree this time. Chairman Ramon Estrada introduced a resolution to approve all of the requests except the restaurant issue. Some other Commissioners felt that, while they supported the variances, they were unhappy that the developers waited so long to come to the community. The Utopia project team had attended almost a year's worth of ANC and community meetings before going to the BZA. Because of this, the ANC voted to oppose all four variances (and special exceptions).

This project will also go before HPRB in December. The Dupont Conservancy voted to oppose the design for aesthetic reasons. They felt (and I agreed) that it has too much glass in front, which doesn't relate well to the historic building. Something still modern but with more brick would fit better with the surroundings.

I hope HPRB makes some design changes to yield a more attractive building. But I also hope they don't start "sculpting" down the mass of the bulding. It already pulls back in the rear at the higher floors, to avoid looming over the smaller nearby houses. That's appropriate. But a seven-story mixed-use building at 14th and S will be a good addition to the neighborhood, and the rear loading and parking entrance the right design.

Update: The following night, CSNA (the neighborhood association for the U Street area) raised similar objections to the glass and the short advance notice.

22 comments

Tags: 14th Street, ANC, density, development, Dupont Circle, historic preservation, Whitman-Walker project

Whitman-Walker project has positive impacts, too (Dec 3, 2008)
Revised Whitman-Walker plans cruising toward approval (Feb 24, 2009)
ARTS report balances bars and arts, requirements and bonuses (Sep 9, 2009)
Historic review chickens and BZA eggs at 14th and U (Oct 10, 2008)
What should historic preservation really protect? (May 28, 2010)

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

Comments
Add a comment »

i know that it's all opinion when it comes to the looks of buildings and what we like and don't like....but i think this looks great. furthermore, this would do a great job of filling up a block that has so many holes in it, it's like swiss cheese on 14th. i really hope this is able to go through (with the necessary tweaks).

by IMGoph on Nov 13, 2008 9:54 pm • link • report

David, Interesting observation that Utopia which did all the right things gets put through the ringer by the ANC, but this project which shows up at the last minute gets a pass because there isn't time to really study the issue.

After witnessing the partisan spectacle the ANC made of itself regarding 3rd Church of Christ Scientist the other night, all I can say is, we need change in Dupont. This particular ANC used to be known as a fair, impartial and deliberative body. What happened? When did perceived personal sleights take precedence over constituents' interests? Yeah ... the constituents want another box office tower with more commuters in place of the community-serving and architecturally award-winning, and landmarked church we have at 16th and I. Yep ... constituents' interests are certainly being represented there. NOT!

by Lance on Nov 13, 2008 11:05 pm • link • report

The funniest part of the evening was when they called themselves "friends of the church" and then in the next breath talked about making sure it gets razed.

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

by Lance on Nov 13, 2008 11:26 pm • link • report

That ordinance in Cleveland Park restricting outdoor seating has contributed to the atrophy of businesses in Sam's Park and Shop.

by Bianchi on Nov 14, 2008 12:52 am • link • report

The overlay does not inhibit outdoor seating per se, but rather the quantity of restaurants as measured by linear feet on the street.

Removing or altering the Commercial Overlay in Cleveland Park (both along Connecticut Ave as well as around the proposed Giant) will go a long way to immediately improving the vibrancy along those corridors.

Changing certain forces in the local ANC will help with the outdoor seating.

by William on Nov 14, 2008 6:56 am • link • report

This is the west side of 14th between S and Swann, correct?

by Matt on Nov 14, 2008 7:31 am • link • report

Here we go again...... Kudos to Estrada for his support of a good project though. As for the rest, I do think it's a bit childish to oppose this more or less because they didn't come kowtowing to the ANC earlier. Since when did ANC's get into the business of architecture?

by SG on Nov 14, 2008 8:03 am • link • report

Isn't this location beyond the boundaries of the Dupont Conservancy? And, if so, why are they involved? I agree that the design needs improvement, but let there be contemporary architecture on 14th! Contemporary design works in historic neighborhoods!

by Olga on Nov 14, 2008 8:12 am • link • report

I voted against the project and make no apologies for my vote. And a big part of the reason is that the developer never brought the plans to us until the very last day. And their was fierce opposition by the neighbors. They argued that project would dwarf their historic row, and construction could even jeopardize the integrity of their old homes.

If I am not given enough time to go out and eyeball the location to see for myself what the neighbors oppose, it would be irresponsible for give the developers a pass.

The law says the ANC's decisions be given great weight by city agencies (whatever that means). That being the case, the developers should give us enough time to study the pros and cons of what were deciding. They were asked repeatedly to do so. They failed, and we voted no, rejecting their bum's rush.

Several other issues: 1) I believe the residents said their homes were built in 1864..not 1804.

2) Lance wasn't paying attention. We voted AGAINST the project, which, in the world of reality, is NOT giving a pass. It's just the opposite.

3) I agree with David that there's too much glass here, and the structure does not honor the W-W building. There's too much dissonance. More brick, in colors that complement the historic structure, would be a big improvement. There's no reason why modern construction can't fit in.

4) This project is gonna happen, folks. But, because groups like the Conservancy, BZA, and HPRB weigh in, it will be a far more attractive project, in harmony with what's around it.

5) And yes, Lance, we are friends of the church. Because the church is a congregation of faith. You, on the other hand, are a friend of the structure. You constantly mistake the Brutalist structure for a community of faith. I guess some people don't realize the best things in life aren't things. They are freedoms, beliefs, ideas, and emotions.

by Mike Silverstein on Nov 14, 2008 9:14 am • link • report

Yes, this location IS beyond the boundaries of the Dupont Conservancy, this project lies within the boundaries of the Greater U Street Historic District - David you should have mentioned that above - the community steward of this historic district is the Cardozo Shaw Neighborhood Association (http://www.csnadc.org/joomla//content/view/23/29/).

Although the project is in Ward 2 (the east side of 14th Street is Ward 1) which is why I imagine the Dupont Conservancy is commenting on this project.

At last night's CSNA meeting the project was presented and discussed. CSNA also expressed disappointment in the timing of the community presentation given the size and scope of the project.

CSNA voted and approved to submit comments and concerns to BZA and HPRB without indicating support or opposition to the project at this time. Comments/concerns in the two letters include:

Zoning/BZA:

None of the variances were controversial, and CSNA would like to see dedicated car-sharing parking and see the developer explore the addition of commercial office space as well.

Design/HPRB:

There was no opposition to size or massing, but there was little support for the 14th Street facade as presented - but the other 3 sides of the building were OK. Comments included:

• Too much glass along 14th Street, while it looks nice, it does not compliment the buildings nearby or across the street

• That much glass will also create some serious quality of life issues for new residents (this project is across the street from the Black Cat) - noise, sunlight, etc.

• Retail storefronts run together and very plain. More strip mall than city.

• More masonry elements need to be introduced to the facade on 14th, bringing brick down to the street level

• 14th Street roof line is rather dull

by Bryan, CSNA on Nov 14, 2008 9:23 am • link • report

The CSNA's comments are more like it...

I hope the variances are approved. I agree that they are not at all controversial.

Regardless of what I think though, I think it is good that the ANC seeks to improve projects. I do think it should end with trying to, as David says, sculpt projects by knocking 2-3 floors off. It reduces the economics of the projects, making it more unaffordable, and ignores the fact that this is a major international city. One day we may look back at the lack of density as an act of selfishness... meanwhile, the suburbs grow into car-dependent black holes.

by SG on Nov 14, 2008 9:33 am • link • report

Mark, if you want to talk about dissonance, then let's talk about counterpoint. It may be hard to see with all the glass boxes being built, but glass can look very good against brick. Because it has the opposite texture and contrasting qualities, it can add to the feeling of the neighborhood, if a strong rhythm is kept in the mullions and a flat glass wall is avoided. That image is tiny but it looks like it is a good addition, with the exception of the uninteresting storefronts.

Rather than demanding more brick, asking for more deeply articulated steel and glass parts would work. Look to the building above the International Spy Museum for some clues as to working with the texture of the neighborhood.

by The King of Spain on Nov 14, 2008 11:00 am • link • report

... well there are small pockets up here in the suburbs that aren't car-dependent black holes. However, we have similar forces that are trying to keep the car-dependent black holes that way/turn the walkable places into car-dependend black holes as what is often seen in the District. Often, they seem to be stronger since they were developed, with the exception of Silver Spring, College Park, and other pre-WWII streetcar suburbs for automobility. The District has the advantage of much better precedent (believe it or not) due to the fact that it has always been an urban place, and the L'Enfant street plan.

by Cavan on Nov 14, 2008 11:06 am • link • report

One addition on Design/HPRB comments from last night's CSNA meeting:

• Integration/connection with the existing historic structure could also be improved

by Bryan, CSNA on Nov 14, 2008 11:18 am • link • report

Cavan- I don't mean to generalize. I happen to like many of our cities in the suburbs very much- Silver Spring, Bethesda, Arlington as a whole, and most of Alexandria. But as a whole, suburbs like Gaithersburg, Fairfax, etc are depressing to me

by SG on Nov 14, 2008 11:38 am • link • report

agreed. I hate when text can't pick up facial expressions. My comment was meant to highlight some advantages the District has in planning matter, not act upset.

I don't feel any resounding loyalty to suburbs. I live where I live because it's where I could find a place I could afford that's in a walkable, transit-rich location. If money wasn't an object, I'd buy a house in Logan pronto.

by Cavan on Nov 14, 2008 12:52 pm • link • report

please do NOT try to match the brick of the old building. Do we want this to be a giant blob, indistinguishable between old and new?

use a different brick. please. be contextual. but: total uniformity = boring.

by DG-rad on Nov 14, 2008 4:26 pm • link • report

Can someone please explain to me the restaurant limit? Was this development trying to put restaurants in, but it was blocked? As a supporter of the local business group trying to get the building at 14th and T, I am interested in nice, local restaurants opening along this corridor as I think it contributes to safety at night. Of course no one wants another Adams Morgan on 14th Street, but places like Cork and Rice are great assets just to the south of this location. I believe more restaurants of that genre should be welcomed, just as we should work to save the Tryst/Diner concept for 14th and T.

by JulieN on Nov 14, 2008 5:05 pm • link • report

Dave- I actually think this could stand to keep the glass, but loose a floor or two. The proposed bulk visually overwhelms the WWC next to it, even with all that glass. It's not that I mind a differential, but do prefer a gradiated differential.

Mike S: good point on the CS Church. I don't know any Christians (or other religions) that would willingly put a house of worship over the faithful who worship there.

by anon on Nov 14, 2008 8:55 pm • link • report

Anon, Don't be misled by the assertion that this has anything to do in the least with freedom of religion. Some very smart PR-types have thrown that out hoping that people would fall for it. And obviously some have. The assertion won't stand up in court, because it doesn't.

The bigger story here is greed.

by Lance on Nov 14, 2008 9:27 pm • link • report

Looks like the building couldn't make up it's mind to be a good background building or a one of a kind modern masterpiece. Soo much glass, soo little curtains...

by Thayer-D on Nov 17, 2008 10:04 am • link • report

Tom: I've moved the comments from today from this post onto today's post so that people interested in the topic will see them. I think the commenters would benefit from hearing your perspective.

by David Alpert on Dec 3, 2008 10:25 pm • link • report