I have been bitten by a dog while riding a bike. On my way home from school, this giant rottweiler started chasing me. I thought I could out run it on my bike. Man was I wrong. It lept up and dug its teeth right into my left butt cheek. The dog had a pretty good grip because it must have hung on for a a couple of seconds before it let go. Needless to say, I never took that route again.

by SK on May 21, 2010 9:39 am • link • report

There seems to be no good reason to tear them down until the project is actually happening.

guess it depends on one's point of view -- i suspect the intent of the developer was to knock those houses down before any civic opposition could develop. reminds me of GM and crew ripping up streetcar tracks in the middle of the night back in the day.

on doggies -- love 'em -- but if your dog bites someone, you should go to jail, and be easily held responsible in court for damages of all kinds. right now, there are some decent-ish laws for this type of thing, but not enough imo. at least getting hit by a car, you can die instantly, or near to it -- when getting mauled by a pit bull, i suspect it's a tough way to go. can't imagine getting one's face ripped off is any fun. or bit in the butt! i've been chased by dogs while jogging a lot, too -- not so much in the city -- always out in more rural areas where people don't expect to find anyone walking/jogging/riding.

by Peter Smith on May 21, 2010 9:51 am • link • report

There seems to be no good reason to tear them down until the project is actually happening.

Were people still living in them & paying rent? If not, perhaps the developer was concerned with the upkeep of unoccupied buildings?

by Bossi on May 21, 2010 10:02 am • link • report

ATF HQ worst building in DC? Nah, it's not that bad.

My vote: Lauinger Library, Georgetown University. Brutalism CAN be good, but this is not the right place.

by renegade09 on May 21, 2010 10:15 am • link • report

@SK

And I thought that being bitten in the butt was just a figure of speech! ;-}

by Matthias on May 21, 2010 10:24 am • link • report

ATF HQ looks like a prison from some vantage points. But the intersection where it sits used to be full of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, so maybe the mere presence of such a fortress has already made a difference.

by aaa on May 21, 2010 10:25 am • link • report

Were people still living in them & paying rent? If not, perhaps the developer was concerned with the upkeep of unoccupied buildings?

This was my thought as well - I assumed that nobody was living there. Kind of a toss-up. An empty lot sucks, but so do falling-down abandoned buildings.

by MLD on May 21, 2010 10:25 am • link • report

Were people still living in them & paying rent? If not, perhaps the developer was concerned with the upkeep of unoccupied buildings?

That, and the 10% blighted property tax.

(not to mention the expiring raze permit)

by ah on May 21, 2010 10:46 am • link • report

Wasn't that raze permit granted with the specific stipulation that the site would developed following the demolition?

If so, then the developer needs to be sued into oblivion for destroying a block of rather nice houses that were adjacent to several vacant lots. There are also a handful of blighted areas in this vicinity that could have been used as a site.

I'm outwardly angry that the developer was able to get away with this, and that the zoning board allowed it, while complaining about trivialities such as power lines and colored road paint. Combined with the recent LeDroit park fiasco that drove a developer away from a "good" project, can we agree that DC is completely ass-backwards when it comes to historic preservation?

(That said, the block wasn't demolished "in a hurry." The plans have been on the boards for ~2 years now.)

by andrew on May 21, 2010 11:13 am • link • report

@Andrew, Re-read the posting. This area isn't in an historic district ... hence no historic preservation protection from either the District or the feds is available to it. I.e., only the zoning rules apply ... historic preservation laws cannot trump zoning in this case since it doesn't apply to a non-historic district designated place. Also, you're confusing quite a few entities in your rant. It was the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) that acted on the bike lanes. They are a federal entity charged with protecting the federal interest in the District of Columbia. They are a commission appointed by the president to look after the interests of the American people in the District and elsewhere. I'd argue that since this area is in the L'Enfant plan area (i.e., the original city of Washington), that yes, they should have protected it. But you know, since they keep hearing from folks such maybe yourself who keep saying 'this isn't an important viewshed only a view of the White House or the Capitol is', they're probably not too inclined to extend their authority to this area.

by Lance on May 21, 2010 11:41 am • link • report

Andrew, In sum, You're a very real part of the problem ... when you and others play into the hands of DDOT or other agencies who'd rather not be bothered with any of this historic preservation business (or anything else that hampers their decision making) you work against the very people who are working hard to keep this city livable, to a human scale, and the type of urban area that a blog like GGW says it wants. You give these agencies someone to point to and say 'see the people don't care about preserving DC in a livable, human, way ... they just want more transit, more services, and more housing ... and they don't care how that gets done as long as it gets done. Yes, you're a very real part of the problem when you let yourself get played to stop the very thing you're saying your wanting.

by Lance on May 21, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report

In the case of the Dreyfus property, the neighbors and preservationists were essentially bought off. During the PUD approval process, Dreyfus agreed to a quid pro quo, giving the community a grant to study expansion of the historic district.

by Paul on May 21, 2010 12:39 pm • link • report

gotta defend Lauinger Library - the brutalism would be different if it were on a streetscape presenting itself to the street its neighbors and the passers-by - but it isn't - it's on a college campus, defining a corner of the campus, on a hill. As for the brutalism, the campus side is open and welcoming. From the riverside, it may look like a monolith, but its on a hill above the river - it's not like it's turning it's back and presenting a blank forbidding wall at eye-level. And actually the river side is filled with windows giving those inside studying gorgeous views of the river and downtown Washington. I can understand not loving it - that's a matter of taste - but I really don't understand the hate.

by andy on May 21, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

I think Lauinger has many defensible qualities as a building, it's just that it obscures the view of one of the most distinctive buildings in DC (Healy Hall). We have so few distinctive buildings that it seems a shame to build something pretty much right on the front lawn. It's like building a brutalist White House Visitors Center on the South Lawn. AFT HQ is a less interesting building, but that part of town is pretty awful anyway so it doesn't make much difference.

by renegade09 on May 21, 2010 3:01 pm • link • report

RE: Lauinger

I agree with Andy in that I'm OK w/ Brutalism, though I'll also join others in that I feel it's rather out-of-place on the campus.

@renegate09-

I'd hesitate to say the area around the ATF HQ is "awful" ... it's certainly changing, and Gallaudet is a beautiful campus. While it's mostly a drive-through area of town for me: I know a couple people living in the area & also checked out some places nearby back in March when I was looking to move. The neighborhoods in each direction can be quite nice, despite the stigma that surrounds them. The Metro station nearby is quite convenient, if only development would make greater use of it.

As for ATF HQ... I'm just glad to finally know what the deuce that building is. I'd always wondered that everytime I swung about in the NY/FL jughandle. Part of its potential consequence is that it takes up a large portion of prime real estate but doesn't do much to cultivate a lively street atmosphere. I kind of group it in w/ the Convention Center... big land use, great transit-proximate location, but a desolate stretch of concrete. While some may see it as an improvement over what used to be there... the lack of a street scene could constrain it from developing into much much more.

by Bossi on May 21, 2010 3:14 pm • link • report

@Lance: I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning. Can I not simultaneously advocate for historic preservation *and* livability enhancements? Cohesive neighborhoods play a crucial role in building sustainable communities. Developers such as EYA understand this, and don't build high-density condos and apartments in the midst of a historic low-density residential neighborhood.

As far as I can tell, a developer tore down a block of perfectly good buildings, several of which would have been considered "historic" by almost any stretch of the imagination, and has no immediate plans to build anything on top of it, despite being within earshot of the Capitol?

How is opposing this absurdity "part of the problem"?

by andrew on May 21, 2010 3:15 pm • link • report

@Bossi: In spite of its oppressive frontside facing NY and Florida Ave, the ATF building has street-facing retail behind it, along the 2nd St stub, which has the potential to become quite nice once the other developments in the area are completed. I give the building a B. It could be much worse.

by andrew on May 21, 2010 3:18 pm • link • report

RE: Goodbye Townhouses

This is tragic. There is still vacant land and buildings on H St that need to be redeveloped, but we're allowing more vacant land to be created at the expense of historic structures! I would like to see more small-lot infill development appropriate for a rowhouse neighborhood instead of wholesale destruction of entire blocks to make way for megastructures such as those monstrosities at 3rd & K.

by Matthias on May 21, 2010 3:21 pm • link • report

@Andrew I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning. Can I not simultaneously advocate for historic preservation *and* livability enhancements?

Of course you can and should. The problem is that some folks (maybe not you personally) say they're all for livability enhancements that respect the historic elements of this city, but when push comes to shove are ready to sacrifice these historic elements in the name of expediency. Or more accurately, they let themselves get duped into thinking its for the sake of expendiency.

A good example is the wires issue for the streetcars. The streetcars will be a great enhancement to the city. But we shouldn't be doing it at the expense of destroying the 'open skies' element that is so fundamentally a part of our city. Like its low lying nature, the open skies with monuments peaking out into them are a very fundamental part of what defines us as a city ... a very fundamental part of what makes us a much more livable city than say Arlington. And 'wired skies' will do much to harm the livablity of this city by going counter to this fundamental aspect of the city that serves to define it.

We should push for streetcars (or cable cars, or whatever gives us that above-ground neighborhood to neighborhood transit that we need.) But we should do it in a manner that doesn't sacrifice our views (all our views ... and not just the so-called 'viewsheds') because we're being told 'either you do it that way or it's not going to happen.'

It's a natural inclination for District agencies and others to want to do things 'their own way'. But in the past there's been a very strong public 'watch dog' making sure that corners didn't get cut and that the citizenry had a say in what happened. A citizenry that understood the importance of not throwing the baby away with the bathwater. Of late though, these agencies have found a way to get around these citizen watch dog groups. They've pretended to find a whole new citizenry that supports what they want. The new media have become 'constituencies'' and their mouthpieces. But they haven't become their watch dogs ... at least not yet. And that's where I say, yes, continue to scream for change and continue to want livability enhancements and advocate for historic preservation. But have some skepticism when you start feeling like you're more than ally than the watchdog protecting the public's longterm interests.

by Lance on May 21, 2010 4:47 pm • link • report

A good example is the wires issue for the streetcars. The streetcars will be a great enhancement to the city. But we shouldn't be doing it at the expense of destroying the 'open skies' element that is so fundamentally a part of our city.

Of course not, when it's so much easier to wave a magic wand and sprinkle pixie dust and have the streetcars just move by themselves.

While we're at it, why don't we build floating houses in the sky so that we can all enjoy the green space under them?

by David desJardins on May 21, 2010 5:08 pm • link • report

I support this.

by Bossi on May 21, 2010 5:15 pm • link • report

@David desJardins, Thanks for illustrating what happens when you start believing everything you're told ... It's not hard to have streetcars without wires ... We had them here for a hundred year period before streetcars were discontinued in the 60s. Additionally, the 'requirement' isn't to have a 'streetcar' per se. It's too have something that provides neigbhorhood transit. If it really is impossible to operate a streetcar without wires (which I don't believe it is), then we need to explore alternatives that do the same thing without wires. Ever hear of a bus?

by Lance on May 21, 2010 5:18 pm • link • report

The ATF building is cold in appearance, but hardly the worst building in DC. Just stroll through the West End and you can find worse. And if the Metro DC is the unit of analysis, then the Parklawn Building (Twinbrook Metro) or most of Rosslyn would easily beat it for the title.

by Rich on May 21, 2010 5:31 pm • link • report

The arguments against the H St Streetcar wires would be a lot more convincing if the area didn't look like a slum, didn't already have wires along it, and had the potential to improve without significant investment along the corridor.

@Lance: The X2 bus runs along the planned streetcar route. It has one of the most frequent service intervals outside of the Circulator system, and the buses are almost always jam-packed. They're also noisy and loud. The prospect of a streetcar line is driving businesses and developers to the area in droves. New businesses are appearing in decades-vacant storefronts on an almost weekly basis.

I have no beef with preserving non-monumental views. However, there's not a whole lot to look at along H St. It's too wide, has no vegetation, few buildings taller than 3 stories (none that are architecturally significant), and is almost completely flat. (IMHO, DDOT should have built the project on a separated ROW in the median, and included provisions for extensive plantings along the shoulders. However, the NIMBYs didn't like that either)

And I *still* have no clue how this relates to the original issue. If we shouldn't be "ready to sacrifice these historic elements in the name of expediency," we shouldn't have let the developer build on the site, which was my original point.

by andrew on May 21, 2010 6:09 pm • link • report

If it really is impossible to operate a streetcar without wires (which I don't believe it is), then we need to explore alternatives that do the same thing without wires.

No one said it's impossible. It's just impractical and a waste of money while getting a worse result. As for alternatives, in the board game Elfenland you can ride on giant pigs. Maybe we should look into that.

by David desJardins on May 21, 2010 6:18 pm • link • report

This thread has now made me want a flying house, a giant travel pig, and I kind of want the boat from Monopoly.

by Bossi on May 21, 2010 7:20 pm • link • report

While we're at it, why don't we build floating houses in the sky so that we can all enjoy the green space under them?

by David desJardins on May 21, 2010 5:08 pm

There likely would not be much green space due to the shade produced by the floating house.

by Jazzy on May 22, 2010 8:21 am • link • report

I wrote two of the posts on DC Mud. I live nearby, I love DC's historic architecture (I made a point to take pics of that block when the excavators showed up) and I don't mind seeing that block developed into massive residentail/retail. H Street is (set to be) a major transit corridor (yay streetcars!), the block is adjacent to Union Station, building there makes sense to me. Half the razed buildings were not actually historic. I'm happy with the movement there, but I would like to see the developer follow through and actually build something more beneficial for the community than a parking lot.

by Amber on May 22, 2010 10:06 am • link • report