Comments on ANC opposes landmarking Western Bus Garage - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Steve Watkins

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:08:19 EDT

The WRECO bus garage is much the same - and in the same line of up for nomination as a historical landmark. Perhaps a slight bit more interesting architecturally. Very slightly. These laws were created to preserve architecture like Union Station. These bus garages have interesting facades, but that's about all that's worth preserving.

Comment by Richard Layman

Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:23:31 EDT

Rain17 -- yes, but there is a very big difference. What is proposed to happen to the buses?

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:08:27 EDT

Which of National Geographic's buildings did this architect design? I'm assuming the "M Street Building" (the one that is supposed to emulate a Mayan temple) since the 16th Street building is much older, and the 17th Street building was designed by the same person who designed the Kennedy Center.

Comment by David Alpert

Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:48:27 EDT

Update: The final agenda and staff reports are out for this month's meetings, and this building is not on it. That means that HPO postponed the hearing, perhaps because the ANC requested it, or maybe for other reasons as well.

Comment by Rain17

Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:42:59 EDT

Isn't this what the opponents of the Cathedral Commons tried to do in their more than decade-long quest to stop the new Giant from being built? So are we now going to have to suffer through years of court battles to get something developed there because of a few neighbors who want nothing to change?

Comment by Richard Layman

Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:07:33 EDT

David C -- the issue with the GA Car Barn was "integrity" -- how the structure had been changed so much over the decades that the historicity of the original structure/use had become so muddled that "saving" it through designation would ignore the lack of historicity.

Now generally, this question of integrity is the first thing that preservation consultants working for the land use bar will base their counter-arguments on.

But in many of the cases, it is a legitimate argument. (FWIW, I got info to the Brightwood people where I said it was extremely unlikely that a landmark application would be approved, for that and other reasons, and that they needed a back up plan if they wanted to continue to oppose the Walmart project.)

I just don't know enough about the building in Friendship Heights to offer a considered but only semi-professional opinion on the historicity and to make a semi-educated guess about how HPO/HPRB would act, based on my own experiences on similar matters over the years.

As far as WMATA operation goes, again, I say the residents can't have it both ways. If you want to have transit service, you have to have a way to store buses.

I agree with BTDT that an underground facility isn't likely given the FAR capacity of the land (yes, NYC land values are significantly greater because of this, and they will do things like underground bus garages as a result).

You can't get rid of bus garages there and on 14th St. (eventually) and not already have a good alternative for accommodating the buses.

Comment by David C

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:11:57 EDT

This is why we have gatekeepers. What is worth preserving is largely an opinion. One man's junk is another man's treasure, as they say.

So we have people who are chosen to make these "value" judgements. People are welcome to propose any building and the hope is that the process works.

Still, I can't see how the recently demolished car barn on Georgia Avenue didn't pass muster, but this will.

Comment by Jim

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:54:09 EDT

According to the application on the preservation office website, it was filed in 2005, and the building was built in 1934.

Comment by William

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:33:27 EDT

I will speculate that the HPO staff is still working on some "rational" discussion about how to justify supporting the nomination to the HPRB.

Comment by fongfong

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:19:57 EDT

Latest news is that this application has been postponed from the September meeting until the next HPO meeting on October 25. Speculate away.

Comment by Richard Layman

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:42:32 EDT

wrt optimality, all I can say is without alternative options for new space, and for new space to be created that doesn't cost WMATA more money than they will get for selling, that people hot to trot for new development ought to be more judicious.

While--and granted I don't live by there--I thought it was reasonable to put a bus garage at Walter Reed, residents successfully--at least thus far--have fought that off.

Then DCOP suggests in the Central 14th Street Plan that the 14th St. bus garage can be redeveloped into housing.

In both instances--Western Ave. and 14th St.--I ask, where the f* are you going to put the buses?

Comment by Richard Layman

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:40:01 EDT

BTDT -- I skimmed through the streetcar/transpo infra. studies about 10 years ago, although I was focused on the Near Northeast area, when I was leading a study of that neighborhood back then.

It's customary when doing a multiproperty/thematic study to do preliminary applications for all the buildings/sites deemed potentially contributing. But just because a preliminary determination of eligibility is made doesn't mean that an application will be filed.

And I don't think back then and I even wonder now, that the city/HPO/planning has a systematic procedure for "taking in" the info on these studies and acting on it in a systematic way. E.g., the studies for the Amtrak Maglev project found lots of parts of northeast DC as potentially eligible for designation as part of the Sec. 106 review in conjunction with a federal undertaking. But while the info was filed with DC HPO I don't think they ever acted on it in a formal manner, e.g., suggestions for landmarking the Florida Market, and for the housing around Parker St. NE, among other places.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:11:30 EDT

Yes, the bus garage is in a later phase, but I do know that it is going ahead.

I don't see how burying the bus garage makes the site less porous to any mode other than buses.

Can we at least agree that the site is a less-than optimal use of the space?

Comment by BTDT

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:32:02 EDT

I was talking about the porousness of the site in terms of vehicular ingress and egress -- not stormwater runoff. Sorry, I thought that was clear from context.

Comment by BTDT

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:22:48 EDT

I don't have a position on landmarking. I'm just questioning the assumption that but for historic designation this site would no doubt be a mixed-use development with the bus facility undergrounded.

I think both economics and logistics argue against that particular scenario.

@Neil Flanagan. Do you know the status of the NYC project you linked to? The document you provided appears to be 5 years old and the depot is still in operation AFAICT. Columbia has started work on the Manhattanville campus but its project map shows that block as a MTA-owned bus garage (http://neighbors.columbia.edu/pages/manplanning/images/gallery/ownership.png). Do you know if Columbia and MTA ever reached an agreement on that project? (It was only hypothetical at the time of the environmental impact statement.)

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:16:59 EDT

Well, I'm no expert on what developers want, but perhaps we should let one propose a solution, rather than frightening them off with a landmarking.

BTW - a building would likely make the site less porous, because currently there is an asphalt parking lot on the site, and a green roof could be installed.

Comment by Luke

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:05:14 EDT

Sure, time will tell, but why not consider the possibilities of what can make the neighborhood better while also bringing in more revenues for the city, rather than landmarking a brick wall and playing the doom and gloom game with the negatives?

Comment by BTDT

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:38:43 EDT

Underground garage vs. surface lot changes the porousness of the site and internal circulation in a multi-story garage is also more constrained. Those are new elements. As is intensification. And even in this epitome of a transit center, the majority of residents still own cars and the majority of employees drive to work (according to the TDM surveys in FH, MD).

As to viability, the NYC project Neil Flanagan referenced involves 6.8 million SF of development (in Manhattan) as the incentive for redeveloping a 318,000 SF bus depot. It's hard to imagine 3.4 million SF at the Western Bus Garage site (that would require a 20+ story building with 100% lot occupancy) to support a facility half that size. Much less such a project of that magnitude having no impact on vehicular traffic in and out of the site.

That's before we get to a host of other questions such as whether any developer would believe that there's demand for that much space (on top of a bus repair/maintenance/storage facility) in this particular neighborhood; whether development at Wisconsin & Jenifer in DC is as lucrative as development at Broadway and 132nd in NYC; whether what a university in Manhattan is willing to do to create a new satellite campus at a particular location bears any relationship to what a developer is willing to do to build a generic mixed-use TOD project in metro DC.

At any rate, time will tell who's right on this one.

Comment by Luke

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:32:48 EDT

The buses all already use 44th/Jennifer. There is no Wisconsin Avenue egress on site. As such, the issues you are claiming are strawmen. This is a completely viable site for an extensive rebuild featuring an underground/at grade in the rear facility.

Intensification of the site would not necessarily mean more vehicular traffic. After all, it is the epitome of a transit center.

Comment by BTDT

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:21:14 EDT

Because getting that many buses in and out of a multi-story underground garage in a relatively short window would be a real PITA -- ramps and turning radii in the garage would be an issue and an expense (lots of wasted space) and entry/exit to the garage would be onto relatively narrow streets (Jenifer/44th). Lots of potential for bottlenecks, especially if you picture a significant intensification of use at the site which, presumably, would be required if you wanted mixed-use on a scale that would subsidize reconstruction of the garage.

And a few million is a gross underestimate of development costs. Remember that WMATA's spending $9 million just to upgrade the existing above-ground facilities.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:14:59 EDT

It's not unlikely at all. Columbia University, for example, is burying a much larger bus depot in New York. They're even paying for it to be converted to serve a CNG fleet, eliminating the need for diesel fuel storage tanks.

The issue is cost, and it's no more expensive than putting in two floors of underground parking. But who needs that when there's a bus depot and a subway station literally underneath the building?

Comment by Luke

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:06:08 EDT

Why would it be unlikely? A modernized garage with proper environmental remediation would have minimal impact on the community (much less than today). You might not want to live there, but I am sure there is a developer who would be willing to bet a few million dollars that there are plenty of people who would.

Comment by BTDT

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:26:26 EDT

Over a hundred buses parking nightly and others being repaired in an underground facility with upscale housing or retail on top seems highly unlikely.

And all of the shopping centers (Chevy Chase Plaza, Wisconsin Place, Mazza Gallerie, and the Shops at Chevy Chase) in that area have recently had major redevelopment or renovation projects (CCP's is in progress now), so that option doesn't seem like a realistic prospect any time soon. Unless you're thinking Lord and Taylor, but it'd make more sense to just put a residential or mixed use development there.

At any rate, relocation of the bus repair/storage facility is probably the key to redevelopment at that site. Subdivision might also be a possibility -- not sure how attractive that would be, though.

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:30:25 EDT

Quilter: It will probably stay there, but be underneath a new development. Or, possibly, it would go underneath some other nearby parcel if one of the large stores there is redeveloped.

Comment by Quilter

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:23:15 EDT

Aside from the brick wall I don't see any aesthetic historical value to the building. I would like to know where the bus depot would go. It serves NW and is part of the community.

Comment by BTDT

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:29:22 EDT

@andy2 -- the building proposed for landmarking was constructed in 1934.

@Richard Layman -- the application was originally made about 15 years ago by EHT Traceries as part of a multi-property designation of transit facilities citywide.

Comment by Richard Layman

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:22:03 EDT

1. From a strict historic preservation standpoint and the history of transit in the city, a landmark designation is reasonable.

2. Yes, it's likely being used as a way to ward off development.

3. It's hard to say how HPO/HPRB would respond. They aren't concerned about saving every example of particular forms of buildings, but more like a representative sample. They probably believe that the 14th St. now bus garage (formerly streetcar barn) is the best example and the only one worth saving.

4. That being said, there is a process for consideration of redevelopment or changes to designated buildings, called the "special merit" process. Basically the "good" from a new project has to _significantly_ outweigh the "bad" that arises from the loss of the building.

I would be shocked if a special merit application for redevelopment of this site were to be rejected.

Comment by William

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:33:26 EDT

@karl

If I understood the ANC correctly, they suggested that AU become a "wet" campus again so as to remove the issues of loud, post bar noise and off-campus parties from the residential neighborhood.

Further, if we as a city cannot encourage and focus new development, housing and retail opportunities around the metro stations, there where exactly should they go (and please don't answer "over there" because it is already happening "over there").

Comment by fongfong

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:26:44 EDT

@karl Seems to me that if no-one is running against this group of bullies in a free and open election, the populace must be pretty happy with their actions. Democratic votes are the ultimate "anti-bullying" tactic. I believe the flip side is fascism, which I think most would consider bullying.

Comment by andy2

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:07:30 EDT

AHHHH
THS give historic preservation a bad name. This building has zero historical value (it was built in the 60s and doesn't reflect any architectural trends/styles of the time).
WMATA please repurpose this single use site into a multi-use sight and perhaps spend a bit more on architecture to reflect the sites previous use as a car barn. It'd be nice if the Wisconsin facade reflected that history with large arched-windowed openings that look like old car barn doors.

THS - please focus on preserving what is actually historic and valuable.

Comment by karl

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:05:17 EDT

ANC 3E has made quite a reputation for itself by not listening or dismissing any issues that don't involve smart growth, more height and more density in the Tenleytown/Friendship Heights area. They distinguished themselves in the AU Campus Plan hearings by suggesting students should be allowed to have alcohol in their rooms. They don't play well with others and this is just another example of their inability to work with their comstituents. Mary Cheh hand picked one member and actively campaigned on his behalf. It's very telling that not one of the members of the outstanding previous commission remains. No one even considered running against this group of bullies.

Of course the bus garage should be landmarked.

Comment by BTDT

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:23:35 EDT

Not the same structure. The bus terminal (in MD on the NE corner of Wisconsin and Western) had the clearance issue --largely resolved, I think, by the combination of yet a newer series of buses and some reconstruction work on both the ceiling and the floor. The bus garage is in DC just south of Jenifer St and the facade in question faces 44th, I think. That area is a storage and repair facility in active use.

FWIW, the NW Current quoted a WMATA spokesperson who said that the agency recognizes the historical significance of the garage and does not oppose the landmark nomination.

It's pretty typical that HP nominations only get filed and/or heard when the owner is about to do something to or with the property (e.g. renovate, sell). It's a kind of triage system both for HPRB and for the volunteer-run historical societies that typically put together the case for designation. HPRB is taking up this application now because WMATA is about to do a $9 million upgrade of the facility.

Comment by Matthew

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:29:38 EDT

Isn't this the garage that's mostly unusable anyway because the CNG or hybrid or whichever new series of bus is too tall to fit inside?

Comment by fongfong

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:02:29 EDT

I was at the ANC meeting, and specifically asked the individual representing the THS if she would withdraw this application until such time as a new development plan was being pursued by WMATA after hiring a developer. The logic being that if the precious brick wall was the thing that needed to be preserved, wouldn't it make the most sense to wait and work with the developer to preserve it, rather than have a chilling effect on any future development that would need to work around this potential designation. An approach like this would bring a good name back to historical organizations like hers, and forestall the criticism TNS is rightly receiving.

As you might expect, she had no desire to do so. It's the combination of the all or nothing attitude of these organizations, combined with a sometime overbearing Historic Preservation Office that actually gets in the way of rational historic preservation. Imagine the increased number of historic district there might be in residential neighborhoods (Chevy Chase DC comes to mind) if the process was more flexible so that residents did not have a visceral and negative reaction. Alas, this may not be meant to be.

Comment by Mark DeLatch

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:50:20 EDT

Western Division garage is just that, a bus garage. If Metro wants to get rid of it and have someone redevelop it into TAX PRODUCING properties, then let them.

The only Metro garage that needs a "Historical Landmark" is Northern since that garage still has its original architecture from its days as a carbarn and has a link to DC's transit history.

Comment by Transport.

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:17:16 EDT

Look at the Western Division structure vs., say a true former but still operational "car barn" such as WMATA's Northern Division building along 14th at Buchanan. Anyone who does this would probably further question this landmarking.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:00:44 EDT

This building, while perfectly pleasant, does not serve any particular value as an artifact.

Comment by Flora

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:52:00 EDT

This is my old neighborhood. I have to say, if even the ANC says it's not historically significant, it has no historical significance. This is a classic case of NIMBYism, the kind of thing that gives historic preservation a bad name, and nobody does it better than the Tenleytown Historical Society. They've won a lot of fights lately, but here's hoping they lose this battle in the larger war to keep their leafy suburban enclave, lavishly served by transit, from ever merging with the rest of the city.

Comment by Frank IBC

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:49:45 EDT

Old - without question. "Historic" or "landmark" - not so much.

Beautiful or best use of land - most definitely not.

Comment by Cleveland Park

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:34:03 EDT

Ahhh...the "preservation as a weapon to stop development" move. See it all the time here in DC. Similar goobers tried the same ploy to preserve the Cleveland Park Giant from being redone, a building that looks almost the same and had zero to preserve.

Folks who go this route, should have to pay the costs associated with the time lost waiting for it to fail.

What a joke

Comment by drumz

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:58:34 EDT

I'm having trouble seeing why any 1 story brick warehouse could ever be granted a historic designation based solely on its architecture.

If it's where Edison invented the light bulb, sure. If its a place that has only housed transportation vehicles then you should be laughed out of the committee room.

Comment by William

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:25:06 EDT

Why is the Tenley Historical Society attempting to landmark a building in Friendship Heights?

Comment by Thayer-D

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:09:43 EDT

In this case it definatley seems like preservation is a tool to block development. That being said, it woul d be dead easy to add a building on top of this facade. Look at the Landsburg building where Jaleo is in downtown. They plopped an apartment building on a 5&10 terra cotta facade.

OHP really need to develope a intermediary level of preservation to scoop up more of these marginal properties which, by them selves don't add much, but in the aggregate, contribute a lot of character.