Public Spaces
Sette wants an enclosed sidewalk cafe. Where do we draw the line?
In November, Sette Osteria, the pizza restaurant at Connecticut and R in Dupont Circle, proposed putting a retractable awning over their outdoor seating. The awning would enable service in a wider range of weather. The restaurant's manager initially told the community that they planned only to request the awning, not a complete enclosure. However, only a few months after receiving approval for the awning, they have requested permission to install removable panels that would completely enclose the space during the winter.
Circa at Connecticut and Q. Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.
How far should we allow restaurants to go along the continuum of enclosing their space? Sidewalk cafes are a distinctive part of DC's streetscape. They fill in some of the wide public space, bringing activity up to the sidewalk. At the same time, open-air sidewalk seating leaves open space above, keeping a wide visual view along the street. It allows pedestrians to see and hear diners as they walk by, and the diners become eyes on the street.
In DC, this space is all public, rather than private, property. Owners of the adjacent property can request permission to build a sidewalk cafe and even enclose it, but don't actually own the space.
Sidewalk cafes make a positive impact, and we should encourage them. But what happens when restaurants want to add more than a fence and some seating? Are awnings okay? What about plastic sheeting that restaurants only install during the rain or cold? What about a permanent structure? Some cafes have completely enclosed some or all of their public space with wood, glass, or metal structures. In Dupont Circle, prominent examples include Annie's on 17th Street or Afterwords and Raku on 19th and Q.
Left: Annie's on 17th Street. Right: Raku on Q Street.
Images from Google Street View. Click for interactive version.
Annie's dramatically breaks up the flow of buildings on 17th. The sidewalk on either side extends all the way back to the building line, creating wide, empty spaces. Meanwhile, Annie's sticks far out, forcing pedestrians into a narrow space between the wall and the tree box. Its solid walls prevent passerby from seeing the diners and vice versa.
On the other hand, Afterwords and Raku don't intrude as negatively onto the public space, at least to me. Both enclose part of their public space with permanent structures, but only part. Both place outdoor seating between the enclosed part and the sidewalk. That creates a transition zone. Pedestrians encounter the outdoor seating, filled in good weather and empty in bad, rather than walking right along a solid wall.
To support Sette's awning, the restaurant would install vertical supports along the building front and along the sidewalk. During nice weather or when the restaurant wasn't using the sidewalk cafe, the supports would remain, but the top and sides would be open to the air. Their first proposal involved a large number of these (seven, I believe), each fairly thick. Together, they would have blocked the view along R Street.
The Dupont Circle Conservancy and Dupont ANC both spoke against this plan. In response, he restaurant revised their plans to use fewer supports. Despite some misgivings, DCC and the Historic Preservation Office approved this revised design, but without the signs on the railing (which violate public space regulations):
Click to enlarge.
This month, the restaurant returned to the Conservancy to request a complete enclosure. They would use removable panels to convert between an open air configuration in summer and a fully enclosed one in winter. Sette's representatives argued that they need the added seating to remain profitable. However, many residents, myself included, felt like victims of a bait-and-switch. If they have so many customers that they fill the (fairly large) interior space and need even more, will having the enclosure really make or break the business?
Where should neighborhoods draw the line? Is Annie's over the line, but Raku and Afterwords not? If so, what line divides the two? And if not, where is the right line?
 | 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
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
Outside of their property line:
Fences - no
Walls - no
Windows - no
All of these make the area into a private domain rather than a public one which the restaurant is utilizing.
Signs - Allowed if they have an open-air feature during the summer (on the property line) through the walls of at least 50% of the street frontage. I saw this at Gordon Biersch in Rockville Town Center, and it does wonders for the feel of the street.
Awnings - yes, max 50% coverage of the sidewalk width
Outdoor furniture - Yes, if it leaves at least 6-12ft of walking space (spaces less than 3ft wide do not contribute to this total), depending on foot traffic levels
by Squalish on Feb 16, 2009 6:44 pm • link • report
I'm sure those that have captured the "DC Commission on Sidewalk Enclosures" will be able to do whatever they want while un-connected proprietors in SE DC will have the heavy hand of the Wilson Building come down on them. Already established businesses will use the power of the regulation to harass new competitors. It happens every time with business regulation and I see no reason why it won't happen here. Regulatory capture, my friend.
by MPC on Feb 16, 2009 6:52 pm • link • report
Is there no other way to have sidewalk cafes other than appropriating public space?
As for the particular case of Sette, I would favor fewer obstructions to open seating and keeping it as attractive as possible. Does anyone know if they do enough business to justify enclosing it during the Winter?
by Jazzy on Feb 16, 2009 7:45 pm • link • report
This is all public space. The only bright line rules are "build nothing on public space" or "build anything". Anywhere in between and we need some kind of rule.
by David Alpert on Feb 16, 2009 7:45 pm • link • report
Otherwise, no, you can't build on property that you don't own or have rights to build on.
by MPC on Feb 16, 2009 7:49 pm • link • report
Also, permission to use the sidewalk should be contingent on the amount of pedestrian traffic. If pedestrian traffic increases over a long period of time to the point where outdoor cafes are a significant blockage, they should be required to pull back or vacate the sidewalk entirely. That alone would keep sidewalk cafes low-key and non-permanent.
by Laurence Aurbach on Feb 16, 2009 7:55 pm • link • report
They subsidize them by allowing free rent, and the cost to the public is the opportunity cost of lost rent payments.
Why should restaurant vendors get special privileges that other businesses and proprietorships do not? The argument that they 'add' to the community should be the argument that the cafe-owner, not the taxpayer who has lost out on rent payments should be making.
by MPC on Feb 16, 2009 8:01 pm • link • report
(David, unrelated - would love to hear more about that transit group recently established. I don't think they have a web site, even. Your RAC meeting. And, there's an upcoming ANC meeting on the opening of the road next to-between Marie Reed.)
by Jazzy on Feb 16, 2009 8:41 pm • link • report
Again, micro-managing businesses. It might be trendy to have such a setup, but I doubt the insurance agencies would like multiple unmonitored entrances.
The law should not exist simply to make things how they 'ought' to be in the minds of those who have influence on policy.
by MPC on Feb 16, 2009 8:51 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Feb 16, 2009 9:38 pm • link • report
by JW on Feb 16, 2009 9:44 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Feb 16, 2009 9:45 pm • link • report
The rules don't seem to prohibit enclosing any cafes, as long as they aren't more than 20 feet wide and leave 10 feet of sidewalk space. That's a pretty broad standard. By that rule, Sette and just about any other cafe could enclose as long as they built the appropriately fire-resistant structure with adequate egress.
I don't think Sette should be allowed to enclose completely, but nothing in DCMR 24 chapter 3 seems to prohibit it.
by David Alpert on Feb 16, 2009 9:53 pm • link • report
It brings life to the street, and can raise a little money. What's not to like?
by Ralph Bennett on Feb 16, 2009 9:56 pm • link • report
The problem with allowing enclosed areas goes far farther than the who should be paying for what. Back in the 1870s it was decided that DC's wide streets weren't getting full use ... and laws were passed to encourge the greening of the city. The area between the sidewalk and the building line (which in the old part of the city is usually the property line as well as the building facades) was deemed the "parking area" ... i.e., the area to be made to look like a park. The intention was to encourage people to green both sides of the street (a novel idea in the 19th century where there wasn't much greenery except in parks) ... later on projections such as staircases and bays were also allowed. While sidewalk cafes fit that original objective, I don't see how enclosed spaces do.
by Lance on Feb 16, 2009 9:57 pm • link • report
by Lance on Feb 16, 2009 9:59 pm • link • report
In some parts of town, there is public space that is neither street or sidewalk. It's the so-called "parking" (unbuildable open space) and I support more creative uses of these commercial areas. Some of the rights-of-way in the District are ridiculously wide and I support more intelligent uses of public space for underground "green" features like cisterns for gray-water recycling. Apparently several projects downtown have had vaults for these denied by public space, even though they routinely approve vaults for PEPCO. At present the rules on public space projections in residential areas seem to work pretty well and have led to some creative designs, such as the house at Florida and 10th. Public space projections (bays) have a long history, going back to the 1870s.
by Paul on Feb 16, 2009 10:07 pm • link • report
I don't think Sette should be allowed to enclose completely, but nothing in DCMR 24 chapter 3 seems to prohibit it."
They need a permit ... hence why they are coming to the Conservancy etc. MPC is correct, if they can convince the right bureaucrats that they are deserving of enclosing the space, then they get the permit. Like many other matters in DC, this operates by Banana Republic rules (i.e., like a third world country where connections matters more than than rules). Of course if you question the authorities about the rules, you'll hear something along the line of "traditionally we've ... " I.e., you'll get post-facto justifications instead of criteria for approval ... because there really aren't any ...
by Lance on Feb 16, 2009 10:14 pm • link • report
And you're getting at the heart of the problem with your last post. "reasonable" is an utterly subjective term.
Most people here think sidewalk cafes are good. Therefore, we have to come up with some reasonable rules.
Reasonable in this case will mean something different to:
A) The already established sidewalk-cafe owner
B) The emerging competitor sidewalk-cafe owner
C) The taxpaying citizen who has not received rent payments on sidewalks
D) The regulatory commission
If you could 100% guarantee that market-rate rent payments were being paid on rental of the sidewalk, I wouldn't have an issue with it. The likelihood of that happening is slim to nil.
What I would recommend is to somehow figure out a way to auction off 'sidewalk rights', such as air rights one time and then have them be transferable securities that firms can buy and sell on their own.
by MPC on Feb 16, 2009 10:17 pm • link • report
As for sidewalk space, the Subway next door has an iron railing that juts out just far. Also, compare the available space to the width of the sidewalk on the opposite side - it's about the same. I have much more of a problem walking along U Street where you must have the agility of a cat in order to wind around people and jutting staircases.
by Adam L on Feb 17, 2009 1:29 am • link • report
I just walked by there, actually, and the restaurant does have signs on the railing... if they're already in violation of public space regulations, then I don't think they're going to bother complying with other space-use agreements either.
by Adam L on Feb 17, 2009 1:32 am • link • report
Forget rights for a moment. Reasonable means, to us, in this case, a reasonable compromise between the benefits that use of the space has for:
A) The taxpaying citizen who doesn't use the restaurant
B) the taxpaying citizen who does use the restaurant
The process, if any, for establishing whose viewpoint this compromise uses will be some extension of a vote by these groups. We here don't have the power to change the law - only to talk about how the law should be changed.
@Lance:
I think that your definition of "Banana Republic Rules" is an excellent critique of the current process, and frequently zoning-by-exemption in general. Mind if I borrow it in the future?@
--------
As a taxpaying citizen, I'm not officially allowed to set up so much as a lawn chair on the sidewalk in DC, or the police can issue me a citation for "camping" (according to them). I can see how street-front businesses could benefit the community more than me, however. The only hard-and-fast rule for public space should be "nothing that can't be removed", lest we run the hazard of creating a perceived right to the private space (see: Columbia Country Club, front lawns in much of the District).
by Squalish on Feb 17, 2009 5:44 am • link • report
As for the term "Banana Republic Rules". Thanks. I'd like to take credit for it but many years ago a friend who works with developing countries used it in the context of DC. He pointed out all the similarities between how the District government operated and the 3rd world country governments his institution (the World Bank) was dealing with. I'd like to think the situation has righted itself somewhat since then, but I'm not sure it has. I mean if it had, why would the Councilmembers still require all these "constituent services folks" to help the more vocal constituents get the same services that any and all constituents should be able to get themselves ... without any special assistance. And now the mayor has the same kinds of facilitators ... indicating even he has given up on his agencies providing good and equitable rule-based services to one and all.
by Lance on Feb 17, 2009 9:19 am • link • report
So why are the standards for pedestrian infrastructure so much lower?
Also, I don't think people should assume it's there's a consensus that everyone loves sidewalks that are more crowded and noisy. I sure don't. I hate the bottlenecks that result from al fresco dining. NYC is the worst for this; you have lines and crowds spilling out of every bar, and you sometimes have to fight your way through. DC is much more liveable, and I hope we can keep it that way.
I think if a restaurant wants outdoor seating, it should build a courtyard or a rooftop area--or find a new building.
by John B on Feb 17, 2009 1:02 pm • link • report
by DC_Chica on Feb 17, 2009 1:24 pm • link • report
A similar exception is Rumors at 19th & M - a very permanent enclosure on public space (see http://tinyurl.com/rumorsview).
The usage fees should take into account the percentage of time the space is unavailable. Obviously, a permanent enclosure should pay more than a few tables and chairs that are put away each night, or for the winter.
by Michael on Feb 17, 2009 2:42 pm • link • report
by SG on Feb 17, 2009 2:58 pm • link • report
by Lance on Feb 17, 2009 3:12 pm • link • report
by Kael Anderson on Feb 17, 2009 9:51 pm • link • report
http://www.dupontcircleconservancy.org/
http://www.dupontcircleanc.net/
by Joel Lawson on Feb 20, 2009 9:41 am • link • report
Add a Comment