Preservation
"Too big" isn't a historic argument
What's "historic"? The debate over what does and does not count as "historic" pervades most preservation controversies. The national criteria for deeming something historic are very broad. That's helpful for preserving the truly historic, but people opposed to the destruction of nearly any structure can make an argument that it's historic. Arlington's preservation board recently rejected a mixed-use proposal to replace an aging strip mall because they didn't like the size. And in response to recent controversies over property being landmarked against owners' wishes, Montgomery County Councilmember Mike Knapp proposed tightening that county's preservation laws. How do we properly draw the line between preservation and anti-change-ism?
In the Buckingham neighborhood of Arlington, at the corner of North Pershing Drive and North Glebe Road are a series of one-story commercial buildings. They are set fairly far back from the street with a row or two of parking in front. Georgetown Strategic Capital, which is also building the Utopia project at 14th and U in DC, wants to replace these buildings with two four-story mixed-use buildings. But a few weeks ago, Arlington's Historical Affairs and Landmark Review Board rejected the proposal, calling the buildings "too big."
The area today. Image from Google Street View.
December 2007 sketch of proposed development.
Most of the buildings in the Buckingham neighborhood are low in height. Is that lowness historic? Is having buildings set back far from the street historic? Is a lack of walkability historic? Is empty space historic? Some have called all of these characteristics "historic" at various times. Typically, that coincides with opposition to an alternative, like calling Brookland's empty lots "historic" to oppose a plan that could fill them with housing and retail.
DC Historic Preservation Review Board Chair Tersh Boasberg frequently points out that historic preservation doesn't trump zoning. If zoning allows a building of a certain height, Their actions often match those words, but not always. On the Hilton hotel, HPRB refused to to shrink the height of the proposed addition for this reason. But on the Utopia project, they did "sculpt" away an entire floor. (The Hilton was not in a historic district, while the Utopia project was, making the two not entirely comparable.)
If preservation doesn't trump zoning, it doesn't trump zoning. Arlington's HALRB shouldn't have the power to declare a building too tall. That's the role of Arlington's zoning code. If they want to require a facade of brick, or stone, glass or metal, or more windows, or fewer, those are valid compatibility questions. The overall height is not.
In recent years, preservation boards have often edged over the line from preserving the historic to preserving what the board members personally want. In DC, landmarking of structures such as Third Church, against the owners' wishes, have triggered proposed legislation to limit landmarking. According to Wednesday's Gazette, Montgomery County president Mike Knapp introduced legislation to raise the bar on what's "historic" when property owners oppose landmarking.
In those cases, Knapp's legislation would require a property to meet three landmarking criteria rather than just one. Montgomery's criteria, like DC's, mirror national ones. A property can be historic if it was "associated with" historic events or people, "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction," represent the "work for a master," possess "high artistic values," and more. Many of these criteria are extremely vague. Almost anything "embodies" some "characteristics". The current language of preservation speaks very expansively about historicity. That provides too many opportunities for antis to hijack the process to preserve not just what's worth preserving, but to oppose any alternative.
Some oppose preservation entirely. I do not. There are many very historically significant buildings in our region. Our historic districts also derive enormous value from the integrity of their buildings from a unified period. However, preservation's realm is the aesthetic appearance of the built environment, such as its materials and structure. The form of buildings, such as their size and setback, is properly the domain of zoning.
DC's historic districts have also brought valuable design review to many projects. Many recent development projects in DC have gotten better after passing before the discerning lens of HPO and HPRB. They've forced many blank walls, for example, to become better articulated facades. In fact, other old neighborhoods like Bloomingdale, and even mostly new neighborhoods like Near Southeast, would benefit from some similar design review. However, we should limit that review to the aesthetic and artistic decisions the architects make. But quite simply, if the zoning allows a four story building, and the property owner wants a four story building, then four stories there shall be.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. 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
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Planners are the new public health officials
by NikolasM on Mar 6, 2009 3:57 pm
In any event, this would make an interesting court case. I suspect the developer would win.
by Ballston Guy on Mar 6, 2009 4:08 pm
by KRS on Mar 6, 2009 4:08 pm
Legalities aside, it's kind of ridiculous to claim this neighborhood has a low-rise character.
by Ballston Guy on Mar 6, 2009 4:10 pm
The problem is that a more holistic viewpoint is needed to assess the value of historic preservation from a larger planning perspective, which is sorely lacking in this case. The intersection of Glebe and Pershing is an ugly, unsafe mess with curb cuts, service roads, and parking lots at all four corners making it inhospitable to the many pedestrians in the area. I would question its "historic" value to begin with. A four-story pedestrian-oriented development would be a huge improvement.
by RichardatCourthouse on Mar 6, 2009 4:22 pm
For the historic/urbanist front - I believe that it was the first place where "Garden Apartments" were built. I know that low-rise apartments aren't typically associated with urbanization, but think about how few of the residents in that area have cars and how many use public transportation. There are two grocery stores there, a CVS, dry cleaners, a bank, several (good) restaurants, florists, etc. You can live there never needing a car.
I'm all for better urban planning and replacing low-rise apartments with better, more urban residential areas. This plan just doesn't make sense.
by Max on Mar 6, 2009 4:37 pm
by SG on Mar 6, 2009 4:43 pm
I don't agree that historic preservation reviews should never include height- for example, if a skinny four-story apartment building was proposed (and permitted by zoning) in the middle of a row of historic 2-story townhouses...
--------
That begs the question of why zoning would permit a 4 story building on such a block in the first place. If you have a block of historic 2 story buildings and you don't want anything to tower over them, then for goodnes sake, zone that block for 2 stories! It's not spot zoning if you do it for a whole block... and it's certainly not spot zoning if you did it using a form based code.
by Ballston Guy on Mar 6, 2009 4:45 pm
You can oppose something. Just don't try to claim that some ugly obsolete 1960's strip mall is historic. I know a bunch of similar places in Langley Park and Riverdale that the locals can't wait to be redeveloped. They're about the same age and have a similar footprint to the ones pictured. If they aren't historic, these properties sure aren't.
I can't think of a quicker way to turn the general public against historical preservation. Perhaps the movement needs that so it can figure out what it's for rather than just what it's against.
by Cavan on Mar 6, 2009 4:46 pm
by alexandrian on Mar 6, 2009 4:53 pm
by LeeHInAlexandria on Mar 6, 2009 5:21 pm
I agree that open space or preserving antiquities just for the sake of preservation is detrimental to realizing what Buckingham could be. As a resident of two years, I feel that something must be done to rejuvenate this eye sore of corner. While the recent sidewalk and traffic improvements helped, much more MUST be done.
Come on HARLB, get it together! This is one of the last areas of Arlington to be spruced up. You can preserve character of the garden style apartments while promoting a rejuvenation at the same time.
by Buckingham Hopeful on Mar 6, 2009 5:30 pm
by ah on Mar 6, 2009 5:38 pm
I am very wary of "zoning creep"--whereby single-family homes on major streets end up becoming small businesses and then, years later, are razed to accommodate the construction of towering high-rise office buildings because hey, they're already zoned commercial.
One great thing about the District is the height limitation. For that reason, you have wonderful old row houses, beautiful single family houses, bungalows, and yes, a few pedestrian-friendly shopping centers. I even like the old 1930s apartment buildings. You also have more sunlight than in other major cities. I only wish Arlington had the same rule.
I think that people who want to impose high-rises on single-family-home neighborhoods are just as arrogant as those in the outer suburbs who want to force more and wider highways on everyone else, so they can drive into DC faster.
And some people on this blog seem like they want all free abundant parking everywhere to disappear and for all one-story buildings to be high-rises. For God's sake, some of us who are VERY pro transit and pro biking and walking *like* having free parking when we go to the supermarket. Some of us like having small, one-story shops nearby, but we don't want looming monuments to developers' greed. People who have invested in buying a home in a neighborhood have a right to keep it from being changed to something busier, louder, and uglier by people who don't even live there.
Glebe Market is ugly, but in my view, so is Rosslyn.
by JB on Mar 6, 2009 5:49 pm
by CJinArlington on Mar 6, 2009 5:51 pm
But it sounds from CJ's post that there may have been other issues at play, which may be more understandable. Massing, setbacks, style, a plaza - those are all good reasons to tell a developer to come back and try again.
by Ballston Guy on Mar 6, 2009 6:07 pm
As you can see from the comments above, people are upset. If the board acted legitimately, and as far as I know it could have, then perhaps that displeasure is misplaced.
How can we find out?
by BeyondDC on Mar 6, 2009 6:17 pm
by David Alpert on Mar 6, 2009 6:30 pm
David, I think you may have the facts wrong on this. From what I recall, that extra floor was coming to the developers by way of the affordable housing provisions that the developers thought would be in place by the time they went for approval. (The affordable housing provisions will allow a developer to add a floor to a building, provided they make a certain percentage of units "affordable" as defined by the regs in the affordable housing provisions.) As it came time to go for approval, it became clear that the affordable housing provisions made law by the Council weren't going to be implemented in time for them to govern this development. Hence, the developer dropped its plans for providing affordable housing in the development ... and for the extra floor since minus the affordable housing provisions, it had no right to build that floor.
by Lance on Mar 6, 2009 6:43 pm
Yes, you're right that there are three-storey apartments nearby--but I think the difference is that they're not on a major road, and there were already 2-storey apartments there before they tore them down and put up those 700,000-dollar condos no one is buying, between Glebe and George Mason.
by JB on Mar 6, 2009 6:50 pm
The other thing about the Buckingham project, and the original idea that historic designations are being overused by NIMBYites, is the need at all times to increase commercial and residential density near mass-transit access points. Buckingham is basically walkable from Ballston, or a 4 minute bus ride away at most... and by bringing additional density and services to the area, the need for the use of vehicles by folks in the neighborhood could be as minimal as they are for Ballston, Clarendon, or Rosslyn residents. Sorry JB, as someone concerned about the environment and sustainability, I think Rosslyn is beautiful... imagine how much land would have to be developed to spread all that residential and commercial property across the landscape as one or two story buildings. In order to approach the broader goal of a Greater, more sustainable DC, residents in places like Arlington are going to have to make sacrifices in order to maximize the investments we're making in mass-transit. And that means that sometimes high density buildings will need to creep towards the houses.
by ArlingtonAaron on Mar 6, 2009 6:54 pm
by David Alpert on Mar 6, 2009 6:58 pm
by David Alpert on Mar 6, 2009 7:00 pm
by Vik on Mar 6, 2009 8:28 pm
by Vik on Mar 6, 2009 8:32 pm
First of all, let's dispel with the notion that this neighborhood is currently a bunch of 1 and 2 story buildings. That is false. Here is an aerial view of the neighborhood. As you can see, virtually all the residential buildings (including both the garden apartments and the single family houses) are two stories with a smaller third floor attic or loft above. I said 2.5 stories earlier, but if we're going to go with straight numbers the vast majority of residential buildings in this neighborhood are technically THREE stories. A one-floor difference is not unreasonable.
Secondly, I do not agree that four story buildings "loom" over the street (and certainly not over three story buildings). Here are some pictures of four story buildings (from BeyondDC's library). I don't think any of them are unreasonable or would create an inhospitable corner. Rather the opposite, in fact.
It's true that all those buildings I linked to have good massing and detailing, and that makes them more acceptable than many four story buildings. So let's be honest here: It's the detailing and mass, not the height, that matters. And as I said earlier, if the Arlington board held up this project because of the detailing and massing (as it increasingly sounds like they did), that was very likely a correct decision. The height alone, at four stories, should not be a problem.
by Ballston Guy on Mar 6, 2009 8:36 pm
"Some aspects of Washington's image on TV remain the same as ever. Most shows' budgets don't allow for travel, so they make do with stock establishing shots of the Capitol or the White House. If "Lie to Me" continues to score well in the ratings, the show might be able to film in the District next season. That would enable the program to avoid some cringe-making moments when Washingtonians see recognizably Southern California streets subbing for spots in Ballston or Foggy Bottom (we don't do tall buildings here, a fact Hollywood never seems to absorb). "It's hard to accomplish that neighborhood feel of Arlington or Adams Morgan in Los Angeles," Nevins says."
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030504093_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009030601215
Cities and historic districts have their own defining elements, and in the case of Washington, "low buildings" is one of them. Our buildings can be "big" in the sense of sprawling (e.g., the Convention Center is larger than the World Trade Center was, but it isn't "tall", and the Pentagon is humongous), but they can't be high. In order for our city to remain monumental, i.e., remain a city where its monuments and halls of government and democracy don't get dwarfed by the relatively far less permanently constructed high-rises like those of NYC, the height of new additions to our city MUST remain low. The temporal cannot outshine the everlasting; no matter how cheaply steel frame construction can make it to gain height on brick, stone, and mortar.
by Lance on Mar 7, 2009 12:29 am
by Lance on Mar 7, 2009 1:08 am
On the Glebe Market note - yeah it's kind of weird and maybe even dirty. Then again, it's not a 7-Eleven, and at least there is a cheap grocery store there that's able to cater to the needs of the residents around there. That is something that many lower-income neighborhoods, even in Arlington, lack. Also, it's one of the few independent grocery stores in Arlington (the other ones that I think of are Westover Market in Westover and El Chapparal in Clarendon - I'm sure there are more - and on that note can someone please tell me where they are).
Whatever. I've been a somewhat lifelong Arlington Resident - college excluded (Clarendon, specifically). I like urbanization and am grateful that Arlington is taking action to improve some of its corridors. Development should focus on creating walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods that can sustain themselves. I have issues with development here, though. I really don't see why this area really needs to be developed and turned into another Clarendon (as that picture makes it look like). As I posted before, it is already a fairly effective use of space - it's close to two supermarkets, has a drug store, several restaurants, medium-density housing, a bank, a post office, a dry-cleaner, a Metro station, several bus lines, etc. If it could improve, I would remove that ridiculous side street and widen Glebe Road in that area because it's a vital North-South corridor. No, the plan doesn't call for the destruction of the apartments around it. But look at Clarendon - what low-income housing there was doesn't really exist anymore. Arlingtonians claim that they are proud to live in an immigrant-friendly county with people from around the world and many from Northern Virginia come here because they feel like they're part of a community.
by Max on Mar 7, 2009 1:22 am
The zoning issues Boasberg was talking about at the Hilton were about loading docs and use on the back of the building. Those are zoning issues.
by Anonymous on Mar 7, 2009 10:15 am
And how about showing the historic buildings on the east side of Glebe which is the whole point. It's not the CVS or market that they're trying to protect, it's the c. 1935 Buckingham commercial buildings on the other side of the street. Buckingham is only the first garden apartment complex built by the Federal government and only some schlub named Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in its planning and dedication ceremony. But who cares about history when "walkability," whatever that is, trumps everything.
by Anonymous on Mar 7, 2009 10:25 am
I believe David is correct in Mr. Boasberg's admonition about zoning and historic preservation. Historic Preservation provides recommendations for compatibility of new construction (or renovation) for Landmarks and in historic districts. Historic review will not trump what is allowed by zoning. This is why every case where zoning is an issue has a disclaimer saying that the staff report (and subsequent Board decision) is not germane to zoning issues or cases which come before the Zoning Commission or BZA.
by William on Mar 7, 2009 10:32 am
I actually don't mind the parking in front of Ravi Kabob and the CVS very much. I think it does add some character. It's not a sea of cars.
What do you think of redeveloping that area adjacent to the car wash down on glebe towards 50? I wouldn't want to see the Car Wash or small gas station go but there is a shopping center with some parking right next to it.
by Max on Mar 7, 2009 10:50 am
by Richard Layman on Mar 8, 2009 8:10 am
The one newspaper article I saw about the rejection of the developer's plan made it sound as if the developer followed the prior suggestions of the review board, but was turned down anyway. If so, that strikes me as capricious and inappropriate. I second some of the commenters above who requested more insight into the review board's criteria and what prior advice/recommendations it gave to the developer, as compared to the developer's most recent proposal.
by neil on Mar 8, 2009 10:24 pm
Add a Comment