Development
H Street to get replacement for eyesore strip mall
Historic row houses and other old buildings line most of H Street, NE, though with periodic interruptions where more recent modifications have scarred the building fabric such as Meads Row. But one block is all scar: the south side of H between 8th and 10th Streets, which has a one-story, generic strip mall with parking in front, ironically named the H Street Connection.
This isn't appropriate for a major, developing, urban commercial corridor that's slated for a streetcar. Fortunately, developer Rappaport Companies is moving ahead with a Planned Unit Development, designed by Torti Gallas and Partners, to construct a retail and residential mixed-use building on the block conaining 409 apartments and 50,000 square feet of retail.
Top: H Street Connection mall today. Image from Google Street View. Bottom: Development plans. Image from Torti Gallas and Partners. Click on an image to enlarge.
The community requested that more of the building's massing concentrate to the rear of the block, giving it a lower feel along H Street to better match the existing row houses. It also uses a "sawtooth" pattern, like many other recent buildings in DC, to make the structure read like multiple buildings. Except for the corner structure at 8th and H (pictured above), most of the building will use a masonry facade with a traditional look.
The current plans maintain the existing curb cuts on 8th and 10th behind the building, and locate the garage ramps in that alley. (It's not clear if it's a public alley or part of the private property.) Some neighbors have recommended an entrance on H instead. Today, there's a vehicular entrance there, opposite 9th Street, which ends at the site. Given that this is already an intersection, that makes some sense, but it'd still create a better pedestrian and streetcar experience for cars to come in and out using the much less busy side streets.
Ground-floor plans. Image from Torti Gallas and Partners.
The garage will contain 520 spaces, of which 170 will be public. This is much more than zoning requires; if the streetcar were already here, it wouldn't make sense to build so many, but at the moment attracting people to H Street often requires facilitating car storage, and Rappaport should be free to build the spaces it thinks the market demands. However, the community shouldn't push for even more parking spaces as one of their public amenities under the PUD process, as some have suggested.
Other potential community benefits (MS Word) that have come up in neighborhood discussions include Zipcar spaces, a bike sharing station, LEED certification, grants to improve facades on the opposite side of H, funding for an H Street historic survey, or a public toilet to dissuade people from going in the alleys. Those all sound reasonable, and better than even more parking in a project that has plenty for every resident, lots of shoppers, and even some neighbors.
ANCs 6C and 6A split the H Street corridor, and 6C Commissioner Ryan Velasco has written a report about improving the community benefits that come from PUDs. He's also very closely involved with the neighborhood's negotiations on this project. Even though DC hasn't yet made any of the reforms Velasco suggested, hopefully the community can negotiate a good benefits package and let this project reconnect the giant gap created by the H Street Connection.
 | 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
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
by Ward 1 Guy on Sep 17, 2009 12:47 pm • link • report
by цarьchitect on Sep 17, 2009 12:53 pm • link • report
by Thayer-D on Sep 17, 2009 12:58 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Sep 17, 2009 1:01 pm • link • report
by цarьchitect on Sep 17, 2009 1:10 pm • link • report
by Joey on Sep 17, 2009 1:20 pm • link • report
by Vik on Sep 17, 2009 1:22 pm • link • report
I see tons of newly built condos in the NoMa area that are mostly empty. The Senate Square building behind Union Station also looks mostly empty. Another big residential building on (I think) K and 3rd St NE is currently under construction. And of course, the Stadium area has hundreds of empty units waiting for someone to buy or rent them.
How are developers getting financing for building hundreds of new units, when there are thousands of vacant units languishing?
by Fritz on Sep 17, 2009 1:37 pm • link • report
someone needs to put them in touch with the folks who built DCUSA, who could hopefully knock some sense into them RE: parking needs.
by IMGoph on Sep 17, 2009 1:46 pm • link • report
I'm really happy with the infill, but I just don't understand why it has to be at the expense of diversity in design.
by JTS on Sep 17, 2009 1:47 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Sep 17, 2009 1:50 pm • link • report
Don't equate condo sales with housing demand. There's more to housing demand than just *for-sale* housing demand. Furthermore, these units won't be on the market for another 3 years or so at the earliest - I think it's safe to say that the market will probably look different then.
@JTS -
Who cares if it's boring? It's the fabric of the city. Not everything needs to be a monument.
@IMGoph -
I'll third (fourth?) the question on the curved wall.
by Alex B. on Sep 17, 2009 1:58 pm • link • report
by JTS on Sep 17, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Sep 17, 2009 2:01 pm • link • report
http://anc6a.org/HstConnectionReplaceDesign.pdf
by DG-rad on Sep 17, 2009 2:15 pm • link • report
Why can't the "architects" design a corner tower , turett, dome, or spire of some kind to allieviate the repetition of the walls?
These people are good about considering the urban fabric- which is in dire need of repair- but they totally drop the ball in terms of any imagination.
This is so damn typical of the same bland -looking crap you see all over U street and Arlington. It doesn't have to be a monument to be well done.
Why not a little bit of architectural sculpture or coloristic effects? We are supposed to be the wealthiest nation in the histroy of the planet and we cannot even come close to what real architects did 75 years ago.
I doubt that any of these bland- minded conformist "architects" could even build a decent looking "monument" if they tried.
by w on Sep 17, 2009 2:18 pm • link • report
by JTS on Sep 17, 2009 2:24 pm • link • report
If they made it lower but kept the same size, then more of the bulk would have to be closer to the street, which isn't what neighbors wanted. Therefore, it steps back somewhat, but has to suddenly stop at a flat roof once it gets to 90.
DC doesn't have pointy buildings because the focus on height limitations precludes them. We could have a zoning code that allows small bits of buildings to surpass the limit, but we don't now.
by David Alpert on Sep 17, 2009 2:29 pm • link • report
sorry but you are incorrect on this.
Spires and turetts are permitted in DC to go higher than the allowed floor limits.
This has been done numerous times- notably the double towers on Franklin Square.
Also- DC does not have as many interesting buildings such as these -not because of zoning regulations- but because many of these buildings had their towers, turetts, domes or spires removed in the period from the late 1940's thru the early 1960's as insurance companies would not cover the costs for these since many times they were left to decay or good craftsmen could not be had to maintain them.
To say that DC always had flat rooftops is not accurate at all. What we see here now does not necessarily mean it was always this way.
Another example- the Sun Building on F Street NW- which is considered by some architectural historians to be the worlds oldest true skyscraper[ it has the oldest working elevator in the world and it also is a very early example of steel framing ] had it's finial removed in the 1950's for insurance purposes.
Even if the zoning laws did not allow this kind of detailing- they should be amended or thrown out as these kinds of rules are completely ridiculous . The modern flat roof is a product of the petrochemical industry and it was not seen as we have them now until after the US Civil War when cheap products for flat roofing became available. Look at old photographs of American cities from before 1860 and you do not see flat rooftops .
by w on Sep 17, 2009 2:48 pm • link • report
You're right about the height limit, but the height limit and the zoning code are two different things. The height limit allows turrets. Zoning can be and often is more restrictive than the congressional height limit.
by Alex B. on Sep 17, 2009 2:54 pm • link • report
Please delete the extra postings !!!
by w on Sep 17, 2009 3:00 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Sep 17, 2009 3:03 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Sep 17, 2009 3:07 pm • link • report
Thanks for the link. The extra images make it clearer.
Looks good. Nothing wrong with the curve. Maintaining the street wall is good, but its nice to have variation and some breathing room. The use shown in the rendering is good.
by spookiness on Sep 17, 2009 3:07 pm • link • report
'meh, it's so boring and______'
by MPC on Sep 17, 2009 3:14 pm • link • report
by Hill Rat on Sep 17, 2009 3:19 pm • link • report
there's absolutely nothing wrong with a little constructive criticism. i guarantee you that all these commenters are happy to see this plan going forward.
by IMGoph on Sep 17, 2009 3:20 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Sep 17, 2009 3:21 pm • link • report
Too often we settle for whatever /whomever willing to invest in an area- w/o considering the merits or demerits.
Look at that awful crummy and horribly designed Home Depot over by Rhode Island Avenue- sure we need retailers like this in the city- but why did it have to be done in such an absent minded manner- a total let -down and atrocious usage of a transit site that should have had much higer density- eventually the owners or the city will see the folly of this and tear it down and start over again.Just like on H street.
This project is a good start- but why does it have to repeat the same mistakes that are being done that are so obvious and easy to spot?
We don't want to have to tear this down in 30 years when the USA finally comes around to the notion/reality that more traditional architecture works better and lasts longer, looks better , too.
Just like traditional cities and towns- they feel better, look better, last longer, and are just BETTER.
by w on Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm • link • report
http://frozentropics.blogspot.com/2009/09/girls-stab-subway-employee-8th-h.html
by Tom A. on Sep 17, 2009 3:25 pm • link • report
don't conflate the two.
by IMGoph on Sep 17, 2009 3:25 pm • link • report
As for flat roofed buildings, when you look at most Renaissance pallazi in Italy (our architectural forefathers), they all read as flat topped buildings as the roof silhouette was deemed a gaudy medieval relic aesthetically, so to blame the the petrochemical industry might be a stretch, especially since it wasn't as evolved in the 1870's as it is today.
The architecture is definatley safe, but that is more a product of both the sites unmonumental character and of our architectural schools consistently advocating modernism. Torti Gallas just gives them what they want, which is descent traditional urban fabric buildings whether they be modernist or art deco as in Columbia Heights. In other words, when most architects are instructed to produce a traditional design, as thankfully Torti and company do, the lack of a sophisticated training in traditional design vocabulary means that what gets produced might be a little flat. But when you really look at it, so are most fabric buildings in Georgetown or Mount Pleasant. The street scape as a whole ought to take precidence over single buildings for the most part.
Maybe my expectations have been lowered from block after block of mind numbing modernist boxes or in your face starchitect moves, but I'm thankful for a bit of color, texture, and rythem as a back drop to urban life.
by Thayer-D on Sep 17, 2009 3:27 pm • link • report
Ooooookay.
by Alex B. on Sep 17, 2009 3:28 pm • link • report
tone it down dude- I WAS NOT saying this is like the Home Depot- you are trying to pick a fight where there is none.
I was merely pointing out the laziness of the city and the developers who obviously settled on the fastest possible solution . This project on H street is 20 times better than the RI avenue disaster .
Actually, I was going to say that one of the best things going for this is that retail is being considered. Too much of our neighborhood retail has been allowed to be turned into a total suburban residential area in the historic areas of Capitol Hill- a bad bad way of looking at urban fabric. Too often these old fogie "preservationist" people fight exactly this kind of project.These people need to get into their cars and leave DC. They are more concerned with parking lots than history or preservation.
The CHRS- for instance- has fought against the new streetcars for H street- despite the fact that this city was built up around the streetcar corridors. Mom and pop retail is also historic. This new project is just what the doctor ordered and will jump start this neglected street.
density and retail mix is key here.
I just get sick of the same Malibu beach roof deck excuse for ornament and architecture that is so damn common in new buildings.
by w on Sep 17, 2009 3:45 pm • link • report
by Vik on Sep 17, 2009 4:00 pm • link • report
Torti Gallas is a commercial firm that does commercial buildings. They build to the bottom line, so they make work that is attractive and generally pleasing in the most cost-effective way possible. Complex wall profiles are expensive and require good craftsmen. End of story.
As for the modern=boxy/traditional=not boxy, just take a look around and you can see that's not consistently, or even generally true. Same with the flat roof thing. Flat roofs are a common feature of Mediterranean architecture that was imported by people trained in Greco-Roman tradition.
And w, don't tell anyone to calm down when you're suggesting that people who have dedicated their lives to the intricate, difficult work of designing buildings are not real architects. If you want to dislike modern architecture, go ahead, but don't piss on the profession.
by цarьchitect on Sep 17, 2009 4:08 pm • link • report
Cant we get something straight first anyplace with a row of stores regardless of parking is defined as a strip mall; most may have parking lots but that does not change that even without one a place that is a row of stores is a strip mall.
Will there atleast be a Pharmacy there which is extremely useful or will it be a set of stores that residents and people who usually stop there not use like in other areas.
As long as there is still a pharmacy chain and either McDonald's or Subway i'm fine with it; whether or not your agree with fast food does not matter it matters what the residents around there care about.
Actually it is appropriate why is it been til now for anyone to decide to build it was not appropriate they would not be making money and it would have been gone.
There are many places where there are streetcars and have strip malls and they seem to work out just fine. Just because it may not be ok in DC does not make it inapporiate; if there were no strip malls there would be also no retail in many areas.
So how long will construction leave the area without a pharmacy or fast food if it doesnt effect you so what your not the locals of the area.
I guarantee that all of the community benefits wont happen.
by KK on Sep 17, 2009 4:29 pm • link • report
DON'T LECTURE ME.
by w on Sep 17, 2009 4:50 pm • link • report
I guess all I was trying to say is these Torti Gallas designs are no more bland (in the pejorative sense) than most older fabric buildings of the city.
Interesting to know they hire from those two schools though. Might have something to do with their success in these regards..."End of story"
by Thayer-D on Sep 17, 2009 4:52 pm • link • report
Again, not sure you need complex wall profiles to produce interesting architecture. There is such a thing as proportion and the play between solid and void, to say nothing about massing, but to each his own.
Well yes, but most of those elements of architecture result in complex facades that require more materials, more labor, and more time. Many of the standard condos built these days have good massing and good proportion (I think), but still are boxy. Torti Gallas are definitely heading in a different direction, but the attitude at the firm is to produce pleasant buildings that are inexpensive.
In a hard labor market and with more complicated buildings than in 1890 this is one outcome. Where they've had bigger budgets, they've done better.
by цarьchitect on Sep 17, 2009 5:23 pm • link • report
..also, what about the people who currently drive down from Philly to stand outside the Rite Aid with the megaphone and Santa-on-a-noose screaming threats at 100% of white people abd about 25% of black people who walk by?
by WOV on Sep 17, 2009 5:31 pm • link • report
1. 8th & H is the main hub intersection on H and this gives the sidewalk some room and creates a bit of sense of place and a little plaza.
2. Provides room for outdoor seating -- for a restaurant of cafe in the plans.
3. The slightly art-deco look of that part is a nice reference to the Atlas Theater that comes further down.
4. Creates a bit of a transformation between the more residential West side to the more commercial East side of H.
5. Breaks up the monotony of what will be a very large building.
Overall, a big thumbs-up for these plans. A transformative development for H street.
by Nobody on Sep 17, 2009 5:46 pm • link • report
by Carmichaela on Sep 17, 2009 6:52 pm • link • report
by Blah on Sep 17, 2009 7:18 pm • link • report
Pity about all the parking spaces, though.
by Gavin Baker on Sep 17, 2009 8:01 pm • link • report
I live in the area and I *never* eat at McDonald's or Subway, so I don't think it's fair for you to overgeneralize what every resident in the area wants.
I also doubt that they will move the stops for the X2 and the 90 buses because that intersection is indeed a heavily used transit intersection. They didn't move the bus stops at 7th and H NW when the Gallery Place/Chinatown renovation happened either, so I doubt they'll change anything here.
by soul searcher on Sep 17, 2009 8:52 pm • link • report
just as I do most fabric buildings in Georgetown or Mount Pleasant, it's just that they're safe, a much needed value in schools which continually push the lone genius model.
"Well yes, but most of those elements of architecture result in complex facades that require more materials, more labor, and more time" Not true at all. Just look at the quietly elegant Hammond Harwood House in Annapolis. Complex and elegant are not sinonymous.
"Many of the standard condos built these days have good massing and good proportion (I think), but still are boxy"
If boxy isn't a description of massing then I'm really missing something.
"but the attitude at the firm is to produce pleasant buildings that are inexpensive."
I don't know of one firm who's attitude is to produce expensive buildings, and I love that some people still think being pleasant is a good thing. It might not get you on the cover of a starchitectural periodical, but that is exactly what so many people people would like...think of the pedestrian a little more and one's ego a little less.
by Thayer-D on Sep 18, 2009 7:52 am • link • report
These buildings are fine. Not great, a little flat, but good for the background. I feel like we're going in circles.
by цarьchitect on Sep 18, 2009 8:22 am • link • report
It'll look different alright. More supply and even less demand.
by Karl on Sep 18, 2009 9:45 am • link • report
This design isn't only lacking in architectural style, but also in urban massing. Yes, it fills in the space, but does it fill in the space in an appropriate manner? H Street's identity is not the same as that of Mass Ave, or 14th and 16th Streets. Traditionally, it's store fronts were owned by small businesses. In the last five years, that identity has started to return.
H Street doesn't need a big box condo building (we have two going up on the NE and NW sides of K and 3rd already). What it does need is smart urban planning and design that will bring more businesses that operate during the day. Restaurants and bars are great, but I'd hate to see H become Adam's Morgan.
I'm all for development, but I question the way it will occur.
by bp on Sep 18, 2009 11:16 am • link • report
seriously, adams morgan is a 2-3 block area of dense bar-and-restaurant development. h street is 12 blocks or so long. to come even close to something approximating adams morgan, you'd have to have hundreds of new bars. in a word, notgonnahappen.
by IMGoph on Sep 18, 2009 11:28 am • link • report
I understand that it wouldn't/couldn't happen. My point is that the scale of what is being proposed is not appropriate to context that surrounds it. Develop the site, but do it in a way that can enhance the surrounding neighborhood, rather start down the road to another architectually boring corridor. DC has enough of that.
by bp on Sep 18, 2009 11:37 am • link • report
by IMGoph on Sep 18, 2009 11:39 am • link • report
by Steve on Sep 18, 2009 12:06 pm • link • report
Agreed. These buildings are fine. They aren't landmarks, but you don't want every building to be a landmark. If every building were a landmark the city would be a cluttered mess, and the whole concept of "landmark" would be meaningless. For landmarks to work, there has to be a context of vernacular buildings that make up most of the city's population of normal day-to-day buildings. You want your vernacular context to be functionally urban, well-massed, and have enough detailing to keep you interested. This buildings looks to accomplish all those goals. If it's not quite up to the same standard in details that vernacular buildings achieved 100 years ago, at least it's not offensively anti-urban or minimalist in the way that many buildings from the last century were.
All in all: This land use at this location isn't appropriate for a landmark anyway, so contextual vernacular is the correct approach, and these are perfectly fine vernacular buildings.
by BeyondDC on Sep 18, 2009 12:07 pm • link • report
If I'm hearing you correctly, you're concerned about a couple of things - 1) density and massing, 2) small storefronts and small businesses, and 3) types of retail.
1) This is the perfect place to add density. Long term, H street will see the streetcar (sooner rather than later, hopefully). It's a city, and H street is a primary commercial corridor for this area. I don't understand when you say this isn't urban massing - I think it's very urban in its massing. I don't think the height is inappropriate at all.
2) Small storefronts are great, but remember that this development will replace a strip mall. It's also worth noting that the small storefronts are a relic of older times and older land development practices. It's not economically feasible to buy this lot, subdivide it into 20-25 foot wide parcels and let individual developers build on each one, as happened when the street originally developed. The economics, codes, construction methods, etc don't support that any longer, for better or for worse.
What we can do, however, is deal with the consequences. I think this design attempts to do that - the variations in the facade mimic the kind of texture you'd find in a row of narrow commercial buildings. I can only surmise from the renderings, but it looks as if the architects do a good job of keeping the rhythm of the retail spaces, lobbies, etc in the style of a classic urban retail street.
A direct replication of the past is not feasible, nor desirable. What I see here is an understanding of the principles that make those spaces desirable, and application of those principles in a modern development framework.
3) Retail types: The Adams Morgan bit is indeed overplayed. The reality (as discussed on this site earlier with U street and Cleveland Park) is that you need a different kind of catchment area for retail - a neighborhood can support bars and restaurants, but shopping during the day requires a different focus.
It's also worth noting that daytime shopping and nighttime bars can and do use the exact same kinds of spaces. This is a programmatic issue - I don't think it changes the type of retail space you build here very much. What's important is that the retail space is flexible - so it can be subdivided into many small shops, or combined together to house a business with a larger space requirement. The type of business, however, is primarily a programmatic, not a physical issue.
by Alex B. on Sep 18, 2009 12:14 pm • link • report
"out of character" is code for "I don't want it." You know what's out of character? A suburban strip mall in the middle of H St NE.
by Alex B. on Sep 18, 2009 12:20 pm • link • report
Ironic, as you're showing the same short-sightedness that brought us the "H Street Connection" in the first place.
After all, while that corridor may be lined with half-million dollar row houses, I see folks litter. Why not build a lead-smelting plant? We certainly can't afford to be picky.
by ibc on Sep 18, 2009 2:55 pm • link • report
"I also doubt that they will move the stops for the X2 and the 90 buses because that intersection is indeed a heavily used transit intersection. They didn't move the bus stops at 7th and H NW when the Gallery Place/Chinatown renovation happened either, so I doubt they'll change anything here."
Yes the hell they did;
the stop in front of the CVS was moved a few weeks ago due to the arch renovations
the X2,80 & P6 bus stop eastbound was moved several times back and forth actually. it was originally directly in front of the escalators then was moved across the street where the fudruckers is then moved back to where the church is and then moved over to near suntrust.
The 70 northbound bus stop was originally a few feet from the corner of 7th and H then it was moved to in front of the CVS than a few feet further up and then back to where it was minus a few feet south of original location
by kk on Sep 18, 2009 4:10 pm • link • report
by fabric buildings on Sep 19, 2009 7:43 am • link • report
by TrafficJam on Sep 20, 2009 8:21 am • link • report
- living in the shadow of bad architecture at 9th and E NE.
by caphilldcne on Sep 26, 2009 10:01 pm • link • report
Add a Comment