They're not historic, but shouldn't be a parking lot
The first post on Greater Greater Washington about historic preservation that didn't deal with Third Church dates to March 10, 2008, and bears the title, "Historic preservation: a blunt instrument for design review." Today, the historic preservation process remains a very blunt instrument for design review, and an even more blunt instrument for use regulation. Yet it also remains the only real tool for most properties. When a set of buildings aren't really that historic, like Meads Row on H Street, there is no public policy recourse against seeing old row houses replaced with a surface parking lot.
The City Paper runs down the story. Three old townhouses remain on the 1300 block of H Street, NE, along with a one-story structure where a fourth once stood. Retailers don't want to rent space in the dilapidated buildings, and one of the houses has a huge storefront gate marring most of its facade and that of the missing house.
The owner of the properties wants to tear down one, along with the one-story structure that replaced the fourth. In its place, he plans a surface parking lot. Critics charge that he just wants to avoid DC's vacant property taxes. ANC 6A and the Capitol Hill Restoration Society sought to landmark the row, but Historic Preservation Office staff concluded that the buildings aren't landmark-worthy on their own. They're so significantly altered from their original appearance that little remains to preserve, and arguments that the builder, Charles Meads, was himself significant are thin at best. The staff report does leave open the possibility of creating a historic district for the entire H Street area.
HPRB agreed with their staff and declined to landmark the properties. The owner can now apply for a demolition permit, and surface parking will surely soon cover this site. Perhaps, as H Street's revitalization continues and the economy recovers, the owner will eventually build a new structure here, maybe even better than the old. Still, that could be many years. Fixing up those old buildings would surely have contributed more to the area than tearing them down in the meantime.
The revised zoning code isn't yet complete and might not be for two years, but if it were, it would require the property owner to screen the lot from the street with somewhat attractive fences and greenery. Zoning could even require property owners to apply to the Board of Zoning Adjustment for a "special exception" to make a property into a parking lot.
Meanwhile, H Street will be a little bit diminished, and residents are left with few tools to influence what replaces these row houses. Historic preservation law gives HPRB board broad powers to review demolitions and the design of new buildings, but not every property is historic. We need the right tools to give communities some influence over other properties, but without the lengthy, heavyweight reviews that also impose serious burdens on development in historic districts.
- 9 things people always say at zoning hearings, illustrated by cats
- The Northeast Corridor carries more rail passengers than anywhere else in the country. What could it look like in 2040?
- The National Zoo has clarified its safety concerns. Turns out you're the problem.
- Montgomery will go ahead with BRT, but at what cost?
- What if Montgomery County gave BRT a temporary test run?
- WMATA's new general manager is listening before he even takes the reins
- Zig zag road stripes can get drivers to pay more attention