Greater Greater Washington

Preservation


LeDroit "country house" could become 14 homes

A 19th-century country house at 1922 Third Street NW is one of the LeDroit Park's gems. It is about to receive some much needed attention.


1922 Third Street NW today.

At Thursday's ANC1B meeting, Community Three Development presented this concept to renovate the main house, to renovate the carriage house, and to build a new townhouse at the southern edge of the property.

The developer recently finished the swanky M Street Flats located in the Mount Vernon Triangle area. The group also completed The Nine on the 1300 block of Ninth Street, backing up to the historic Naylor Court.  If these forerunners are any indication, 1922 Third Street may receive a high-end renovation.

The developer's design, in his words,

creates an addition to the existing main building that is smaller in scale and secondary to the main building, allowing the main structure to continue to read as the dominant form on the site. This addition terminates in a "carriage house court," designed to celebrate the existing carriage house, while maintaining the historic structure's existing view corridor from U Street. A new unsubdivided townhouse lot and structure is created to terminate the row of townhouses directly to the south of the site. The result of these interventions preserves and enhances the character and urban form associated with the main structure and corresponding carriage house.

Though Community Three will need the approval of the city's Historic Preservation Review Board for the overall project, they are not seek zoning variances.


Rear carriage house.
The proposal calls for 14,000 gross square feet of space and features 14 residential units and four garage spaces— a mixture permitted by zoning. One of the units would be set aside for affordable housing.

Here are some drawings and diagrams from the concept. Note that the developer proposes to add a new rowhouse on the south side of the property (middle of the first drawing below). Some residents have expressed concern that the proposed rowhouse is too tall. The developer states that the added height was the idea of the Historic Preservation Office (HPO), since end-unit rowhouses were traditionally built to be bigger and more prominent than the intervening units.


In the next drawing, the concept preserves the historic carriage house (on the right) and connects it with the main house with a new structure (middle) with a hipped roof that mimics the former and dormers that mimic the latter. Some residents also expressed concern that providing only four on-site parking spaces for 14 units would overwhelm the adjacent streets with additional parked cars. The developer said he proposed five spaces, but HPO suggested four, so as not to overwhelm the site. One ANC commissioner asked the developer what, other than providing less parking, would the developer do to discourage car ownership. The developer had no other plans, but said he would consider bike parking and car sharing.

With the new connecting building and rowhouse, the project will increase the building footprint on the lot.

The developer clearly put a lot of thought into the proposal and it will be interesting to see in the coming weeks what modifications will be made to the plan in light of community input and further HPO staff opinion. Some residents are surprised by the number of proposed units, while others want to see construction start tomorrow.

Renovating LeDroit Park's unique historic homes (unique to Washington, in fact) is nothing new. A few years ago a developer renovated another historic LeDroit property, the Italianate-styled Juniper, and many consider that renovation an exquisite achievement.

The Juniper
Eric Fidler has lived in DC and suburban Maryland his entire life. He likes long walks along the Potomac and considers the L'Enfant Plan an elegant work of art. He also blogs at Left for LeDroit, LeDroit Park's (only) blog of record. 

Comments

Add a comment »

I actually oppose this. LeDroit Park isn't necessarily a transit-dense area, and these homes have a lot of character. There are far more rundown areas to build yet even more condos.

by Adam L on Mar 8, 2010 10:24 am • linkreport

Adam L,

I forgot to mention that the interior was stripped of its original features decades ago when it was turned into a rooming house. All that's left is moldy drywall. Even still, the exterior is historically significant, having changed little over the past 130 years. The main house and the carriage house were cataloged by the Historic American Building Survey in the 1970s.

Also, I live without a car in LeDroit Park and find the transit options pretty good. However, I can see why residents in the area might want one anyway.

by Eric F. on Mar 8, 2010 10:45 am • linkreport

Looks great and quite sensible. Hopefully HPO will allow them to build buildings that actually blend in, rather than making them stand out un-naturally.

by Thayer-D on Mar 8, 2010 11:39 am • linkreport

1.) Looking at the map, if it's not in the half mile circle for the Shaw - Howard U station, it's just outside (by a hundred feet or so).

2.) I have to imagine that putting units here is a great place for people who work at Howard (and the hospital) to live. That doesn't require any transit since it's just a short walk.

3.) As mentioned above, the house is beautiful, but there's nothing there at the moment.

by Matt on Mar 8, 2010 11:42 am • linkreport

I think it's great. I used to live near there, and always thought it was a shame to see that beautiful place abandoned.

Alsol, it's exactly 1/2 mile to the 7th st entrance of Shaw metro, and there's plenty of buses on Rhode Island. There's plenty of transit in the area already, and there's a plan for a streetcar line on Rhode Island.

by jcm on Mar 8, 2010 12:19 pm • linkreport

I live a block away from this building, and hope this plan is adopted. I think it is a shame the condition it is in right now, and could really be a great improvement for the neighborhood.

Re. the transportation issue - I live one block east of this building, and I take only public transportation. The Shaw metro is about ten minutes walk - and there is a bus line that runs right in front of this house that goes down 3rd Street and all the way across P to Georgetown (via Logan and Dupont). There are numerous buses on Florida and New Jersey. The red line is not too far a walk in the other direction. (And don't forget the streetcars...)

by Kevin on Mar 8, 2010 12:50 pm • linkreport

That would be a very interesting addition to an attractive structure. What a beautiful place to live! I'd like to see more of this kind of creative thinking rather than simply building boxes.

by Matthias on Mar 8, 2010 1:37 pm • linkreport

It might not be Metro Center, but that location is pretty "transit rich." As noted above, it's about 0.5 miles, or a ten minute walk, from the Shaw Metro Station. It's also 7 blocks to the 10th Street entance of the U Street Metro Station. The G2 Bus runs right through the neighborhood. The G8 bus (and a future streetcar line) run on RI Avenue two blocks away. The high-frequency 90, 92, and 96 buses (and a future streetcar line) run on FL Avenue two blocks away. The 80 bus runs on North Capitol Street 3 blocks away. The high-frequency 70 bus (and a future streetcar line)runs on GA Avenue 4 blocks away.

by rg on Mar 8, 2010 2:00 pm • linkreport

While one consideration is "How transit rich is an area?" First you have to ask the question "What are the general levels of density in the immediately adjacent blocks? ... And what is the consensus from the residents of those blocks about the desired density for their area?". It might be practical to add density but not advisable ... or even wanted. Yes, the person who owns this piece of land may certainly want to see it built out to the greatest extent, but after he/she has collected their sales dollars and left the neighborhood, it'll be the neighbors paying the price for this increased density. They might like it and they might not. For example, the U and 14th area was for a long time a blighted area. So, increased density there is probably a welcome thing. Especially, since it can mean just returning to a level of density that was there previously. Ledroit Park may be a whole different story. I remember talking to someone from there who said the reason he'd bought there was that there, as opposed to Dupont or Logan, he could afford to own a home. And it was the 'neigbhorhood of single family homes' that made the place appealing to him. If adding all those units to this piece of land requires a variance, then he (and others) might object to that variance ... as they should if they bought with the expectation that that neighborhood would remain mainly single family homes. They would be getting cheated of what they paid for so that that one landowner could make more profit ...

by Lance on Mar 8, 2010 3:37 pm • linkreport

.. re-reading this, I'm seeing where no variances are required ... so, it's apparently within what is allowable as a matter of right 'density wise' ... And the only question appears to be 'does it fit within the historic context of this historic district'. So, remind me again 'why are we discussing density in the first place?'

by Lance on Mar 8, 2010 3:41 pm • linkreport

Indeed, Lance, the developer is not seeking any variances. Since the building is a contributing structure in a historic district, does converting what was originally a single-family house (it later became a rooming house) into a condo building inappropriately contradict the neighborhood's history as a neighborhood of single-family rowhouses and detached houses?

That is a question worthy of debate.

by Eric F. on Mar 8, 2010 3:51 pm • linkreport

Good point Eric. However, the answer to that really lies in how the application for Historic Designation was written out. The correct term is escaping me, but when an application is made to get an area designated as historic there were 'defining elements' of that area which are specified in the application itself. If 'single family row houses and detatched houses' is spelled out, than anyone opposing this use change would have a leg to stand on. If not ... it'll be harder to oppose ... Unless some other defining element touches on something which is only inherent to single family homes or detached houses ....

And incidentally, while they may not need a variance, they're going to need a use change from what is in the tax records (special purpose). I wonder if that is an automatic kind of thing ... or not.

by Lance on Mar 8, 2010 4:20 pm • linkreport

Lance -- all valid points. I was just countering the assertion that this location is not well served by transit. I suppose by some standards, say central Paris, it is not well served by transit. But by DC standards, it is pretty well served by transit.

by rg on Mar 8, 2010 5:38 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or